9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 1003X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e herein above and taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vrs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. [2023 (11) TMI 54 - SUPREME COURT] and in the case of Rimpa Saha [2025 (1) TMI 1525 - SUPREME COURT]] is of the view that no ground is available to review the order passed. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed of the appeal by remitting the matter to the authority concerned to decide the same afresh in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption) (supra). 15. Review of the aforesaid order dated 11.07.2024 has been sought for in the instant review petition. 16. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts it needs to refer herein the settled connotation of law that once the matter has been decided on the concession having been given by the learned counsel appearing for the parties then it is not available for the concerned party to seek review of the said order reason being that the review can only be sought for if there is any error apparent on the face of record or any factual aspect which was not within the knowledge of the litigant even in spite of due diligence then only the power of review can be exercised. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors., [AIR 1954 SC 526], particularly at paragraph-32 has observed as under: "32. Before going into the merits of the case it is as well to bear in mind the scope of the application for r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized as under: "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 v. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasiusto mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., . 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:- (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 25. 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 the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) No(s). 27722 of 2024) wherein the issue of concession has been taken note and when it was retracted back by the learned counsel who had given the concession said to be not in writing then on that pretext the Hon'ble Apex Court has been pleased to come to the conclusive finding that in the Constitutional Court there is no requirement to give the consent in writing, rather, if the consent has been given by way of oral consent then the same is to be accepted, for ready reference the relevant paragraph of the aforesaid order is being referred as under: 5. We must record here what is recorded in the order dated 26th April, 2024 is the oral consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents herein. All the Constitutional Courts in our country accept the oral statements made on behalf of the parties by their respective learned counsel. The order impugned proceeds on a footing that there is no consent given in writing. As the oral consent of the learned counsel appearing for the respondents has been expressly recorded, the order dated 26th April, 2024 could not have been reviewed on the ground that there was no written consent. 6. Therefore, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
