Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Sunil B.Shukre, Avinash G.Gharote, JJ.
Union of India – Appellant
Versus
Col. Ivan Singh – Respondent
Misc. Civil Application (Review Petition) No. 330/2021 in Writ Petition No. 2113/2020 (D) with Writ Petition No. 1796/2020 (D) With Criminal Writ Petition No. 289/2020 (D)
Decided On : 14-07-2022

Advocates Appeared:
Nandesh Deshpande, Advocate, Subodh Dharmadhikari, Advocate, Akshay Sudame, Advocate

The main legal point established in the judgment is that review proceedings are limited to specific grounds as per Order 47, Rule 1, CPC, and cannot be used as a means to reargue the case or challenge the correctness of the court's observations.

Headnote:
Review - Scope and Ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 CPC - Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995) 1 SCC 170, Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389 : AIR 1979 SC 1047], Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909], Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [AIR 1960 SC 137 : (1960) 1 SCR 890], Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [(1964) 5 SCR 174 : AIR 1964 SC 1372], Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Banik (Smt) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 78 - Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The power of review can be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, or on any analogous ground. It may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Unless a plea seeking review falls within the above parameters, a review shall not lie.
Fact of the Case:

The present application seeks a review of the judgment dtd. 07/05/2021. The court considered the parameters of review as per the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the application seeking review was actually seeking a rehearing based on the grounds that the observations of the court were incorrect, which cannot be grounds for review but grounds for appeal. The court also found that there was no power of review vested in the Competent Authority, in the Army Act, 1950, and no new material or changed circumstances were presented to warrant a review.
Issues: The issues involved the scope and parameters of review as per Order 47, Rule 1, CPC, and whether the grounds raised in the application were valid for review.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The power of review can be exercised on specific grounds, and it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. The court also highlighted that unless a plea seeking review falls within the specified parameters, a review shall not lie.
Final Decision: The court rejected the application for review, stating that it was without any merit and ordered no costs.

JUDGMENT

AVINASH G.GHAROTE,J. - The present application seeks a review of the judgment dtd. 07/05/2021. The parameters of review have been spelt out by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (1995) 1 SCC 170 as under :

"8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389 : AIR 1979 SC 1047], speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent observations: (SCC p. 390, para 3)

"It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909], there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."

9. Now it is also to be kept in view that in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly observed that they were entertaining the review petition only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. So far as that aspect is concerned, it has to be kept in view that an error apparent 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 long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [AIR 1960 SC 137 : (1960) 1 SCR 890] wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court has made the following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record:

"An error which has to be established by a longdrawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from selfevident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ."

In Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Banik (Smt) and others, (2006) 4 SCC 78, considering Meera Bhanja (supra), it has been held as under as under :

"13. In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Sec. 114 CPC has to be read, but this sec. does not even adumbrate the ambit of interference expected of the court since it merely states that it "may make such order thereon as it thinks fit".

The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason"