1. Challenge to High Court order allowing review petition and recalling judgment concerning superannuation and retirement age extension. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 250
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur)
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Ratan Lal Patel - Appellant
Versus
Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya & Another - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 2057 of 2022
Decided on : 22-03-2022
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Review Petition – While exercising review jurisdiction, Court has to first satisfy itself on any error apparent on face of record which calls for exercise of review jurisdiction – Review jurisdiction can be exercised only in a case where it is found that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not otherwise.
Review Petition – While exercising review jurisdiction, Court has to first satisfy itself on any error apparent on face of record which calls for exercise of review jurisdiction – Review jurisdiction can be exercised only in a case where it is found that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not otherwise.
Subject
Review - Review Jurisdiction
Act Referred
Headnote
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 – Review Petition – Disposal of – Parameters – While exercising review jurisdiction, Court has to first satisfy itself on any error apparent on face of record which calls for exercise of review jurisdiction – Merely stating that there is an error apparent on face of the record is not sufficient – It must be demonstrated that in fact there was an error apparent on face of record – There must be a speaking and reasoned order as to what was that error apparent on face of record, which called for interference and therefore a reasoned order is required to be passed – Unless such reasons are given and unless what was that error apparent on face of record is stated and mentioned in the order, higher forum would not be in a position to know what has weighed with Court while exercising review jurisdiction and what was that error apparent on face of record – Impugned order allowing review application is a cryptic, non-reasoned and non-speaking order – Nothing has been mentioned and/or observed as to what was that error apparent on face of record which called for interference – Review jurisdiction can be exercised only in a case where it is found that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not otherwise – Impugned order, allowing review application being a cryptic and non-reasoned order, same is unsustainable in law and deserves to be quashed and set aside – Matter remanded to Division Bench of High Court to decide review application afresh, in accordance with law and on its own merits and within parameters of review jurisdiction and to pass a speaking and reasoned order. (Paras 4, 5 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Review Petition/Application No. 1189/2020, by which the High Court has allowed the said review petition/application and has recalled order dated 10.11.2020 passed in Writ Appeal No. 748/2017 and has restored the said writ appeal to its file, the original writ petitioner – respondent in the writ appeal before Division Bench has preferred the present appeal.
Findings of Court:
It is ultimately for Division Bench of the High Court to consider the review application in accordance with law and on its own merits and within the parameters of the review jurisdiction.
Result : Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv. Mr. Sagun Srivastava, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Binisa Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Sinha, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Arjun Garg, AOR Mr. Aakash Nandolia, Adv. Mr. Sagun Srivastava, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Amitesh Kumar, Adv. Ms. Binisa Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Sinha, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Appellant challenged the High Court's order for being cryptic and non-reasoned in allowing the review application. (Para 3 )
3. The court found the impugned order cryptic and non-speaking, as it failed to specify the error apparent on the face of the record. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. Review jurisdiction requires a speaking and reasoned order demonstrating a specific error apparent on the face of the record. (Para 4 )
5. Appeal allowed; impugned order quashed and matter remitted to High Court for fresh, reasoned disposal of the review application. (Para 6 , 7 )
6. Under what conditions can a court exercise its review jurisdiction?
Review jurisdiction can be exercised only in cases where it is found that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not otherwise. (Para 4 )
7. Is a general statement regarding an error apparent on the face of the record sufficient to justify a review order?
No. Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient; the court must demonstrate that such an error actually existed. (Para 4 )
8. What are the formal requirements for an order passed while exercising review jurisdiction?
The court must pass a speaking and reasoned order specifying the exact error apparent on the face of the record to enable higher forums to understand the basis of the interference. (Para 4 )
JUDGMENT :
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Principal Seat at Jabalpur in Review Petition/Application No. 1189/2020, by which the High Court has allowed the said review petition/application and has recalled order dated 10.11.2020 passed in Writ Appeal No. 748/2017 and has restored the said writ appeal to its file, the original writ petitioner – respondent in the writ appeal before the Division Bench has preferred the present appeal.
2. That the appellant herein filed Writ Petition No. 17517/2014 before the High Court challenging the order of superannuation and seeking directions to continue him in service till completion of age of 62 years. The said writ petition came to be allowed by the learned Single Judge along with other writ petitions and they were granted the extended age of retirement, i.e. up to 62 years.
2.1 The University filed Writ Appeal No. 748/2017 before the Division Bench of the High Court, challenging the judgment and order dated 23.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 17517/2014. By a detailed judgment and order dated 10.11.2020, the Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the said writ appeal along with other appeals/petition and confirmed the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge.
2.2 That thereafter the University, through its Registrar, filed a review application before the Division Bench of the High Court. Order dated 10.11.2020 passed in Writ Appeal No. 748/2017 was sought to be reviewed/recalled/modified/set aside on number of grounds mentioned in the review application. By the impugned order, the Division Bench of the High Court has allowed the said review application and has recalled order dated 10.11.2020 passed in Writ Appeal No. 748/2017 and has restored the writ appeal to its original file.
2.3 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court allowing the review application and reviewing its earlier order dated 10.11.2020 passed in Writ Appeal No. 748/2017, the original writ petitioner before the learned Single Judge and the respondent in Writ Appeal No. 748/2017 has preferred the present appeal.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the respective parties at length. We have gone through the impugned order dated 13.12.2021 passed by the High Court allowing the review application and recalling its earlier reasoned judgment and order dated 10.11.2020 dismissing the writ appeal. The same reads as under:
“Heard learned counsels.
On considering the pleadings, it is noticed that there is apparent error on the face of record which calls for interference. The matter requires reconsideration. Hence, the order dated 10.11.2020 is reviewed and W.P. No. 8096 of 2020, W.A. No. 528 of 2017, W.A. No. 748 of 2017 and W.A. No. 753 of 2017 are restored to their files.
These review petitions are disposed of.”
4. Having considered the impugned order, it can be seen that the impugned order allowing the review application is a cryptic, non-reasoned and non-speaking order. Nothing has been mentioned and/or observed as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record which called for interference. It cannot be disputed that the review jurisdiction can be exercised only in a case where it is found that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not otherwise. Therefore, while exercising the review jurisdiction, the Court has to first satisfy itself on any error apparent on the face of the record which calls for exercise of the review jurisdiction. Merely stating that there is an error apparent on the face of the record is not sufficient. It must be demonstrated that in fact there was an error apparent on the face of the record. There must be a speaking and reasoned order as to what was that error apparent on the face of the record, which called for interference and therefore a reasoned order is required to
