Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
Pradeep Singh Yerur, J.
Chief Administrative Officer – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Review Petition No. 100127 of 2022
Decided On : 25-07-2023
REVIEW - Writ Petition Review - Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - The court discussed the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, which allows for the review of judgments under specific circumstances, such as the discovery of new evidence or apparent errors on the face of the record. The court emphasized that review is not an appeal and cannot be used to re-evaluate the merits of the case. The court's decision was influenced by the need to ensure that all parties were heard, leading to a limited review of the previous order regarding notice to the respondents.
Fact of the Case:
The review petitioners, who were not notified during the original writ petition proceedings, sought to review the court's order that directed the regularization of services and benefits for another employee. They argued that their lack of notice and opportunity to present their case could have significant financial implications for the state.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that while the review petitioners were not initially notified, their presence and representation in the review process allowed them to be heard. However, the court concluded that there was no error on the merits of the original order, and the review was limited to the issue of notice.
Issues: Whether the review petitioners were denied the opportunity to be heard and whether the court's previous order should be reviewed based on this lack of notice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that review proceedings are not an appeal and can only address apparent errors on the face of the record. The court emphasized that the review power is limited and cannot be used to reassess the merits of the case.
Final Decision: The court modified the previous order to acknowledge the lack of notice to the review petitioners but did not alter the substantive findings of the original writ petition. The review petition was disposed of accordingly.
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel Sri J. M. Anil Kumar for the review petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel Sri M.B.Raddi for respondent No.2.
2. This review petition is filed to review the order dtd. 7/6/2022 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.102026/2022, wherein this Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the 2nd respondent herein directing the services of respondent No.2 to be regularized and providing of service benefits, arrears in accordance with law in compliance of the award passed in I.D. No. 34/1998 dtd. 23/5/2001. A similar petition was also filed by another employee in Writ Petition No.145046/2020 and accordingly this petition came to be disposed of by this Court on the lines of order passed in Writ Petition No.145046/2020 dtd. 9/8/2021. It is the grievance of the revision petitioners that who are respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 in the writ petition, while passing the orders in the writ petition, this Court had not issued notice to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, who are arrayed as parties and they were unable to bring the certain facts to the notice of this Court regarding pendency of Review Petition No.100069/2021 and W.A.No.951/2007 and so also that the review petitioners were not given an opportunity of hearing before this Court since the writ petition was disposed of following the orders passed in the Writ Petition No.145046/2020, against which, review petition is pending consideration before this Court.
3. It is also stated that the orders passed by this Court in writ petition which is sought to be reviewed would have huge financial ramifications on the state exchequer.
4. Order XLVII Rule (1) of CPC reads as under :
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or Order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or Order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or Order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or Order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the Order."
5. The short point for consideration in this review petition is on the ground that the review petitioners, who are respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 in the writ petition were not heard while the order in the writ petition came to be passed.
6. Learned counsel for the review petitioners are representing respondent Nos.2, 3, and 4 in the writ petition. The only question is notice was not issued to the review petitioners, the order dtd. 7/6/2022 is reviewed only on the ground that no notice was issued to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, who are petitioners before this Court in review petition. Further, the petitioners, who are respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 are heard in this petition.
7. Having heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners and respondents, this Court finds that there is no error having been committed by this Court on other aspect with regard to merits of the case in disposing of the writ petition.
8. Before adverting to the same, it is relevant to extract the Judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of S. Muralisundaram Vs. Jyoti and others reported 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185, wherein the Hon'ble Court has held at paragraph No.15 as follows:
Review proceedings under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are strictly limited to correcting apparent errors and do not allow for a re-evaluation of the merits of the case.
Failure to provide notice to parties may result in procedural errors necessitating correction to uphold fair process.
The need for all parties to be given sufficient opportunity for hearing is essential in judicial proceedings.
Review petitions must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record, not merely an erroneous decision or disagreement with prior judgments.
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.
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
Point of Law : Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which reads as Application for review of judgment.
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
