9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (2) TMI 1394X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d 03.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition (MD) No. 8606 of 2010, the original writ petitioner of Writ Petition (MD) No. 8606 of 2010 has preferred the present appeals. 2. The issue involved in the present appeals as such is in a very narrow compass. 2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation dated 17.07.2008 in respect of the pathway comprised in New TS No. 43 of ward 42, Block AG 15, Indian Bank Colony, Simco Meter Road, Tiruchirappalli Taluk and District, the appellant herein preferred the Writ Petition (MD) No. 8606 of 2010 before the High Court. Before the High Court the respondents herein - review petitioners heavily relied upon the report of the Survey Department and the measurements given in the survey report. However, the High Court discarded the survey report and chosen to rely upon other two reports and consequently allowed the writ petitions by detailed judgment and order dated 03.03.2017. 2.2 That thereafter the contesting respondents herein - the review applicants filed the present Review Application (MD) No. 21 of 2017 in Writ Petition (MD) No. 8606 of 2010 under Order 47 R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sions of this Court in the case of Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753 as well as in Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. Assam SEB, (2020) 2 SCC 677. 2.7 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that according to the High Court and so observed in the impugned judgment and order, the judgment and order dated 03.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 8606 of 2010 was erroneous. It is submitted that however an erroneous order cannot be a subject matter of review and an erroneous order however it may be cannot be set aside in exercise of the review jurisdiction. It is submitted in the present case all the grounds on which the review application was filed and the grounds on which the review application is allowed were as such dealt with and considered by the High Court while deciding the writ petition. It is submitted that therefore there was no error apparent on the face of the record and/or there was no mistake on the face of the record which could have been corrected in exercise of the review jurisdiction. Making above submissions and relying upon the above decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals. 3. Present ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is observed that power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under: "(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any longdrawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d in Writ Petition (MD) No. 8606 of 2010 which is wholly impermissible while considering the review application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC. 5.5 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court allowing the review application it is observed in paragraph 33 as under: "33. The above legal principals were born in mind by this Court while considering the review application. Brushing aside a survey report, which was available on record and which brought out tampering of official records, ought to have been taken note of by the Learned Writ Court, while considering the prayer sought for in the Writ Petition. This has led to an error, which is manifest on the face of the order. Furthermore, the Court proceeded on the basis that S.M. Gajendran had executed a gift deed without nothing the fact that the gift deed was a document, which was unilaterally executed by him, not accepted by the respondent Corporation and could not have been treated to be a valid gift. These facts have emerged on the fact of the order passed in the Writ Petition without any requirement for a longdrawn reasoning. Therefore, we are fully satisfied that we are justified in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
