9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... K; SMT. PEJE CH. SANGMA; SHRI NENGJIN CH. SANGMA VERSUS GARO HILLS AUTONOMOUS DISTRICT COUNCIL (GHADC) ; CHIEF EXECUTIVE MEMBER (CEM) ; EXECUTIVE MEMBER (EM) ; SMT. KINTI CH. SANGMA, MEGHALAYA [ 2024 (3) TMI 1348 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT] where it was held that ' 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.' Review Petition is dismissed. - HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN, CHIEF JUSTICE AND HO ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner, when the Apex Court has granted permission to approach this Court and the review is maintainable and that this Court is empowered to decide the issue and correct the error. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent drew the attention of this Court and contended that there was a provision for an appeal under Section 35G which was repealed by the National Tax Tribunal Act, 2005 which exists prior to 2003 and that in terms of Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944, an appeal shall lie only to the Supreme Court and the review is not maintainable. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the question of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC will not be applicable to the case, more so, when there is a specific provision contemplated und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Bank Ltd., Karaikudi, Sivagangai District Vs. R.M. Rajarathinam and Others [Review Application (MD). No.82 of 2013] decided on 04.02.2015 , held as follows: 10... It is well settled that the scope of review is very limited. The review applicant cannot re-argue and he is not entitled for re-hearing on merits. 5. In another decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in the case of Dhanalakshmi Vs. M. Shajahan and others reported in AIR 2004 Madras 512 , it was opined that the power of review is not an appeal in disguise. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are extracted below: 11. From the above judgments, it is seen that the law is well settled inasmuch as the power of review is available only when there is an error app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ; the review Court cannot look into the trial Court judgment; it can look into its own judgment for limited purpose to correct any error or mistake in the judgment pointed out by the review petitioner without altering or substituting its view in the judgment under review; the review court cannot entertain the arguments touching the merits and demerits of the case and cannot take a different view disturbing the finality of the judgment; the review cannot be treated as appeal in disguise, as the object behind review is ultimately to see that there should not be miscarriage of justice and shall do justice for the sake of justice only and review on the ground that the judgment is erroneous cannot be sustained. 8. It is settled law that even an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected . A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise. 9. From a reading of the above referred Judgments, it can be fairly discerned that: 1. Review is not an appeal in disguise. 2. The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. 3. A wrong expositi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , 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 law 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. 13. The Hon ble Supreme Court in a recent decision reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1406 Review Petition (Civil)No.1620 of 2023 in Civi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
