9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 1064X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate Court In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bhagirathi Amaal Vs. Palani Roman [ 2007 (12) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT] has held that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous. Thus no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order impugned. - Hon'ble Shri Justice Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari And Hon'ble Shri Justice Pranay Verma For the Petitioner : Shri Abhishek Tugnawat - Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Veena Mandlik - Advocate ORDER PER: JUSTICE SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI Heard on I.A. No.5724/2024, an application for cond ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on and illegal. He further contended that it is a clear case of mistake apparent on record and, therefore, the present review is maintainable. 7. On perusal of the grounds raised in the writ petition the petitioner had raised the following main grounds :- (i) Information as per Finance Act, 2021 (ii) Order under Section 148A(d) is not reasoned order (iii) Reopening based on valuation report of Department Valuation Officer is bad in law. (iv) Requirement to disclose all material facts is under old law. (v) Estimation in DVO's report - escapement of income From the aforesaid grounds it is clear that the issue of jurisdiction was never raised at all. Now subsequently, in the present review petition, the petitioner has raised the issue of jurisdiction for the first time in the review petition. 8. Per Contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondents(Revenue) has vehemently opposed the prayer and submitted that while deciding the writ petition, this Court had categorically come to the finding that normally the Writ Courts could not interfere as such by premature stage when the proceedings initiated against the assessee are yet to be concluded by the statutory authorities. In the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. 1[Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.] 12. A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that a review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason. 13. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others reported in 1980 Supp SCC 562, The Apex Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in (1979) 4 SCC 389 , this Court once again held that 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 CPC. 9. 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 of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of this 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 . [emphasis added] 15. The error referred to under the Rule, must be apparent on the face of the record and not one which has to be searched out. While discussing the scope and ambit of Article 137 that empowers the Supreme Court to review its judgments and in the course of discussing the contours of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC in Lily Thomas(supra), the Apex C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment. XXX XXX XXX 58. Otherwise also no ground as envisaged under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been pleaded in the review petition or canvassed before us during the arguments for the purposes of reviewing the judgment in the case of Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani and Others v. Union of India and others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 635. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have discovered any new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence was not within their knowledge or could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of passing of the judgment. All pleas raised before us were in fact addressed for and on behalf of the petitioners before the Bench which, after considering those pleas, passed the judgment in the case of Sarla Mudgal, President, Kalyani and Others v. Union of India and others reported in (1995) 3 SCC 635. We have also not found any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record requiring a review. Error contemplated under the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... parent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case. Therefore, it can safely be held that the petitioners have not made out any case within the meaning of Article 137 read with Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the judgment in Sarla Mudgal case. The petition is misconceived and bereft of any substance. (emphasis added) 16. It is also settled law that in exercise of review jurisdiction, the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are possible in a matter. In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics Hydropower Ltd. and Others reported in (2005) 6 SCC 651, the Apex Court observed as follows: 10. ....In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are af ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ew jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 , the Apex Court observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized in the captioned case as below: 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words any other sufficient reason has been interpreted in Chajju Ram vs. Neki AIR 1922 PC 112 , and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius Ors. (1955) 1 SCR 520 to mean a reason su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. (emphasis added) 20. In State of West Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta and Another reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Apex Court emphasized the requirement of the review petitioner who approaches a Court on the ground of discovery of a new matter or evidence, to demonstrate that the same was not within his knowledge and held thus: 21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the nature of mistake and scope of rectification, depending on if it is of fact or law. But the root from which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. It is either statutory or inherent. The latter is available where the mistake is of the Court . (emphasis added) 23. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others v. Shri Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji reported in (1971) 3 SCC 844, the Apex Court held as follows: 4 .. It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order. (emphasis added) 24. In Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and Others v. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others reported in (2020) SCC Online SC 896, citing previous decisions and expounding on the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1, the Apex Court has observed that Section 114 CPC does not lay any conditions precedent for exercising the power of review; and n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
