9911796707
TMI Blog1980 (8) TMI 217X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ;Act') the respondents raised disputes with the petitioner. These disputes were referred to arbitration. Awards were given against the petitioner. Under Section 63 (a) of the Act the awards could be executed as decrees of a civil court. Applications for executions were, therefore, made in the court of senior Sub Judge. The property belonging to the petitioner was attached. Objections under Section 47, Civil Procedure Code, were filed by the petitioner. These objections were dismissed on the ground that an executing court could not go behind the decree. The petitioner appealed to the District Judge with no better results. The matter was brought to the High Court in second appeal. 3. Various contentions were raised before a learned single Judge of this court. It was, inter alia, contended that Clause 1 (a) of Section 87 of the Act having been deleted by the Himachal Pradesh Cooperative Societies (Amendment) Act, 1972, the award could no longer be executed as a decree. The learned Judge negatived the contention in view of Section 4 (e) of the Himachal Pradesh General Clauses Act, 1968. A reference was made to a Full Bench decision of East Punjab High Court in Ram Singh v. The Crow ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which despite due diligence was not within the knowledge or could not be produced : (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and (iii) any other sufficient reason. It is now well settled that any other sufficient reason has to be read ejusdem generis. It has to be something analogous to the first two conditions and not only for the purpose of doing justice between the parties Chhajju Ram v. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112. 7. The first part of the question relates to a situation where the subsequent judgment of the Supreme Court or a larger Bench of the same Court takes a view contrary to the one taken in the judgment under review. In other words, the judgment when given was perfectly good. There was no error apparent on the face of the record. It is the happening of a subsequent event which renders the judgment erroneous. This cannot bp a ground of review. The purpose of review, inter alia, is to correct an apparent error which should not have been there when the judgment was given. In Rajah Kota-giri Venkata Subbamma Rao v. Rajah Vellanki Venkatrama Rao (1900) 27 TA 197 (PC) Lord Davey said : the section does not autho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ven analogous to it. When, however, the Court disposes of a case without adverting to or applying its mind to a provision of law which gives it jurisdiction to act in a particular way, that may amount to an error analogous to one apparent on the face of the record sufficient to bring the case within the purview of Order 47, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code. 11. A single Judge of the Gujarat High Court in Patel Naranbhai Jinabhai v. Patel Gopaldas Venidas, AIR 1972 Guj 229, ruled that a court cannot review its error on the ground that the decision has been rendered doubtful in view of a subsequent decision of the High Court. 12. A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court in Board of Revenue v. P. K. Syed Akbar Sahib, AIR 1973 Ker 285, was called upon to decide whether a subsequent decision of the larger Bench as well as that of Supreme Court taking a contrary view would amount to an error or mistake apparent on the face of the record. After discussing the existing case Law, Mulla's 13th Edition of the Civil Procedure Code was referred to with approval thus : At page 1672, the learned author observes that it is no ground for review that the judgment proceeds on an incorrect exposition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... makes no distinction between the subsequent decision given by the Supreme Court or any other superior Court. In our opinion. therefore, a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court or a larger Bench of the same court taking a contrary view on the point covered by the judgment does not amount to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. 15. The second part of the question relates to a situation where a court has failed to notice an existing contrary decision of the High Court or the Supreme Court on a point covered by its judgment. Now the failure to notice a decision on a question of law of the Supreme Court, which is the law of the land under Article 141 of the Constitution, is not the same thing as failure to notice a binding decision of the High Court. So we would divide the question into two parts : (a) failure to notice a decision of the Supreme Court: (b) failure to notice a binding decision of the High Court. 16. Failure to notice an existing decision of the Supreme Court on a question of law results in not applying the law which should have been applied. Therefore, a contrary decision given on such a question would amount to a mistake or error apparent on the fac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of the High Court by a Munsif does not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record or falls under the heading any other sufficient cause . The reason given was that the failure to take notice of the judgment, of the High Court amounts to wrong exposition of law. 20. A single Judge of the Nagpur High Court in Pestonji v. Ganpat, AIR 1925 Nag 288 came to a similar conclusion that failure to take notice of a decision of a superior court is no ground for reviewing the judgment. A single Judge of Calcutta High Court in Dewan Singh v. Gopal Singh, AIR 1973 Cal 302, took the same view, 21. A Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Roop Kishore v. Firm Raghbir Singh Baboo Ram (1966) 68 PLR (Sup) 268 ruled that nonavailability of the law laid down by the High Court to the counsel for either side on the earlier occasion, is not an error apparent on the face of the record. 22. A single Judge of Kerala High Court in Thadikulangra Pylee's son Pathrose v. Ayyazhiveettil Lakshmi Amma's son Kuttan, AIR 1969 Ker 186 held that a binding decision by a superior court given before or after the judgment sought to be reviewed, cannot be a ground for review. 23. a contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
