9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (3) TMI 1348X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w laid down by the Hon ble Supreme Court and the Hon ble High Court. The Review Applicant in the guise of the Review Petition wants this Bench to rewrite its Judgment, which is not possible under review jurisdiction. As already stated above review is not an appeal in disguise and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the Division Bench rightly confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge, which does not warrant any review. There are no merits in the Review petition - review petition dismissed. - Hon ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Chief Justice And Hon ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge For the Applicants : Mr. P. T. Sangma, Adv.. For the Respondents : Ms. N. Rajee, Adv. [For R 1-3]. None for R 4. ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review petitioners in their affidavitin-opposition to the writ petition No.321 of 2021. 4. It is now fairly well settled by a series of decisions of the Hon ble Court as also the Hon ble Supreme Court that the scope of review is very minimal and it is circumscribed by the provisions of the statute. It would be relevant to refer to few Judgments to understand and appreciate the scope of review jurisdiction to find out if the petitioner has made out a case for reviewing the order. The Hon ble Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in the case of The Special Officer, Kallal Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Karaikudi, Sivagangai District Vs. R.M.Rajarathinam and Others [Review Application (MD). No.82 of 201 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0818 and 10819 of 2018 decided on 25.04.2018, one of us (SVNJ) sitting at the High Court of Madras elaborately discussed the scope of review and in Paragraph Nos.7 and 8, held as follows: 7. The basic principle to entertain the review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is to correct the errors but not to substitute a view. The judgment under review cannot be reversed (or) altered taking away the rights declared and conferred by the Court under the said judgment; once a judgment is rendered, the Court becomes functus officio and it cannot set aside its judgment or the decree; no inherent powers of review were conferred on the Court; the review Court cannot look into the trial Court judgment; it can look into its own judgment for limited purpose to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. The limitation of powers on court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. is similar to jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking review of the orders under Article 226. 8. In the case in Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitri Devi, reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows: Under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts. The said principles are not exhaustive but only illustrative. 11. To review a Judgment / Order, the Applicants need to satisfy three basic requirements of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C., which are as under: (i) From discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge (or) could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed (or) order made; (ii) There is some mistake (or) error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment under review; and (iii) or any other sufficient reasons. 12. In the present case, the core grounds raised on which the review petition rests, in our considered opinion are beyond the scope of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and the l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cted. (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision / judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. 14. For all the above reasons, we find no merits in the Review Petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
