Back
2000 Supreme(SC) 237
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P.Misra : S.B.Majmudar : U.C.Banerjee
B.H.Prabhakar
Versus
M.D.Karnataka State Co-operative Apex Bank Limited
Case No. : 1676 , 1703 of 1999
Date of Decision : 2/1/00
Review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record; it cannot be used to re-argue the case, introduce new contentions, or rely on evidence that was not pressed during the original proceedings.
Headnote:(A) Civil Procedure - Review Jurisdiction - Scope and ambit - Attempt to re-argue facts or points already decided does not fall within the scope of review proceedings - Non-consideration of a document that was never pressed in service before the Court when the impugned judgment was rendered cannot be treated as an error apparent on the record - Contentions not canvassed before the Court during the original hearing cannot be made the subject-matter of review proceedings.
Facts of the case:
Petitioners filed review petitions against a judgment, contending that a specific resolution was the basis of their appointment and that a particular affidavit should have been considered by the court. They further alleged that the respondent bank followed an anti-labour policy. The petitioners had been absorbed as clerks after the completion of a temporary project tenure.
Findings of Court:
The court found no patent error of law. The resolution in question was held not to be operative on the facts of the case. The affidavit mentioned was not pressed during the original proceedings, and the allegation regarding anti-labour policy was not canvassed during the appeals.
Issues: Whether the review petitions revealed any patent error of law and whether the non-consideration of an unpressed affidavit or new policy arguments constitutes an error apparent on the record.
Ratio Decidendi: Review proceedings are limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and cannot be used to re-argue the merits of the case or introduce new contentions and evidence that were not presented or pressed during the original hearing.
Result: Review Petitions are dismissed on merits.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
practice and procedure
-
civil procedure
-
review petitions
- scope of review
- error apparent on the record
-
review petitions
-
civil procedure
-
administrative law
-
employment law
- appointment and absorption
-
employment law
(1) WE have carefully gone through the common judgment sought to be reviewed in these petitions. In our view, no error, much less any patent error, of law could be demonstrated by the review petitioners for supporting these petitions. The resolution of 07th August 1985 was held not to be operative on the facts of the case. In the Review Petitions an attempt is made to show that resolution of 07th August 1985 was the basis of the appointment of the petitioners. That has not been accepted by the Court. An attempt to re-argue this aspect does not fall within the scope of the review proceedings. So far as the affidavit of Manager, Legal Cell dated 10th August 1996 is concerned it was never pressed in service before the Court when the impugned judgment was rendered. Hence, non-consideration thereof cannot be treated to be an error apparent on the record as tried to be suggested. Policy adopted by the Respondent-bank alleged to be anti-labour for which reliance is placed on the decision of this Court in the case of Dharwad PWD Employees Association v. State Of Karnataka [JT 1990 (1) SC 343 = (1990) 1 SCR 544] also cannot be made subject-matter of review proceeding as no such contention was canvassed before the Court when the impugned decision was rendered. On the other hand the petitioners were absorbed as Clerks by the respondent bank after their temporary tenure ended on completion of earlier project. That may be the reason why no allegation was made about anti-labour policy of the Respondent-bank when appeals were argued before the Court. For all these reasons, the Review Petitions are dismissed on merits.
