Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M. R. Shah, C.T. Ravikumar, JJ.
S. Murali Sundaram - Appellant
Versus
Jothibai Kannan & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Appeal Nos.1167-1170 of 2023
Decided On : 24-02-2023
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 – Review Application – While exercising review jurisdiction in application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order – Rehearing of matter is impermissible in law – Review is not appeal in disguise – Power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view – Such powers can be exercised within limits of statute dealing with exercise of power – In present case while allowing review application High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction and has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC – Impugned judgment and order passed by High Court allowing review application and setting aside Order passed in Writ Petition is unsustainable and same deserves to be quashed and set aside. (Paras 5.1 and 6)
Facts of the case:
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.06.2021 passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras at Madurai Bench passed in Review Application (MD) No.21 of 2017 as well as the orders passed in Writ Petition (MD) No.14847 of 2017, Writ Petition (MD) No.16256 of 2017 as well as the order in Contempt Petition (MD) No.1109 of 2017 by which the High Court in exercise of review jurisdiction has allowed the Review Application No.21 of 2017 and has set aside the order dated 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.
Findings of Court:
Contempt Petition No.1109 of 2017 are remitted back to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits for which this Court has not expressed anything in favour of the either parties.
Result : Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 29.06.2021 passed by the High Court of judicature at Madras at Madurai Bench passed in Review Application (MD) No.21 of 2017 as well as the orders passed in Writ Petition (MD) No.14847 of 2017, Writ Petition (MD) No.16256 of 2017 as well as the order in Contempt Petition (MD) No.1109 of 2017 by which the High Court in exercise of review jurisdiction has allowed the Review Application No.21 of 2017 and has set aside the order dated 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 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’). One Mr. S.M. Gajendran filed the Writ Petition (MD) No.14847 of 2017 as well as Writ Petition (MD) No.16256 of 2017 inter alia challenging the order dated 03.07.2017 in enquiry in Na. Ka. No.5293/A4/2017 as well as the order dated 09.06.2017 in Na. Ka. No.10048/2016/F1 and direct the respondents to accept the registered gift settlement made in favour of the Corporation in settling seven public roads by registration Corporation. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has allowed the Review Petition (MD) No.21 of 2017 and has set aside the judgment and order dated 03.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010. Consequently, the High Court has dismissed the Writ Petition Nos. 14847 of 2017 & 16256 of 2017 filed by S.M. Gajendran. Consequently, the High Court has also dismissed the Contempt Petition No.1109 of 2017. The impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court and mainly allowing the review application is the subject matter of present appeals.
2.3 Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant – original writ petitioner has vehemently submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has erred in allowing the Review Application and has materially erred in quashing and setting aside the judgment and order dated 03.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010.
2.4 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that while allowing the review application and quashing and setting aside the order passed in the main writ petition, the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction while deciding the review application.
2.5 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that while allowing the review application the High Court has exceeded in its jurisdiction while deciding the review application and has exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it.
2.6 It is further submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant that the High Court has exercised the review jurisdiction as if the High Court was exercising the appellate jurisdiction against the judgment and order dated 03.03.2017 in Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010 which is wholly impermissible. R
Review Application – Power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view.
Review Petition – Jurisdiction of High Court while exercising review cannot be exercised as an inherit power nor as Appellate Court be exercised in guise of power of review – Power of review may be e....
Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to rehear a case or correct an erroneous decision without evidence of an error apparent on the face of the record.
(1) Review jurisdiction – Application for review would also lie if order has been passed on account of some mistake—Review court does not sit in appeal over its own order—Rehearing of matter is imper....
Review jurisdiction does not allow for re-evaluation of facts or reweighing evidence but only addresses errors apparent on the record or newly discovered critical information.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
