Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
SHEKHAR B. SARAF, J.
Rumpa Ghosh - Applicant
Versus
International Service Centre & Anr. – Respondents
R.V.W 303 of 2016 Arising out of C.O. 3315 of 2015
Decided On : 05-01-2023
Review Petition - Civil Procedure Code - Order XLVII Rule 1 - The judgment discusses the jurisdiction of the court to review its own judgments, the grounds for seeking a review, and the principles of natural justice. It emphasizes the limited scope of review and the distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. The court allows the review petition, sets aside the impugned order, modifies the trial court's order, and directs the trial court to provide the applicant with a last opportunity to file her additional written statement to the amended plaint.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant filed a review petition against the order of the trial court and the subsequent dismissal of the revisional application by the High Court. The applicant sought modification of the order to allow her to file an additional written statement to the respondent's amended plaint.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the impugned order committed an error apparent on the face of the record by misconstruing the applicant's plea and disregarding the misinterpretation of the applicant's plea by the trial court. It emphasized the principles of natural justice and the need to correct the wrongs committed to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Issues: The issues revolved around the interpretation of the applicant's plea, the grounds for seeking a review, and the principles of natural justice.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the limited scope of review, the distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record, and the need to correct wrongs committed to prevent a miscarriage of justice.
Final Decision: The review petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, the trial court's order was modified, and the trial court was directed to provide the applicant with a last opportunity to file her additional written statement to the amended plaint. The court also directed the trial court to fix strict time limits and endeavor to complete the trial within six months from the date.
JUDGMENT :
Shekhar B. Saraf, J.
1. The present review petition by Rumpa Ghosh (hereinafter referred to as the ‘applicant') arises from the order dated February 2, 2016 passed by Justice Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari in C.O. No. 3315 of 2015.
Facts
2. The factual matrix of the case is laid down below:
b. In response, an application was filed by the applicant for recalling the said order dated February 18, 2010. The prayer was granted by an order dated December 7, 2011 and the amendment stood rejected due to failure on the part of the respondents to comply with Order VI Rule 18 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
c. Thereafter, in the said title suit, the applicant filed a written statement along with a counterclaim to the original plaint on March 16, 2012. In the meanwhile, a revisional application being C.O. 1635 of 2012 was filed by the respondents before this Court against the order dated December 7, 2011.
d. By an order dated June 04, 2012, this Court disposed of the said application and permitted the respondents to apply for amendment of the plaint before the trial court, and directed that the same was to be decided in accordance with the law.
e. Subsequently, on September 29, 2012 the amendment was allowed by the trial court, and a copy of the amended plaint was also served upon the applicant on November 29, 2012.
f. By an order dated February 06, 2013, the applicant was given time till March 11, 2013, to file an additional written statement to the amended plaint. The same date was also fixed for submission of office report in respect of the counterclaim. Due to certain reasons, the applicant could not file the additional written statement on the said date.
g. The office report was then put up for hearing before the trial court on May 24, 2013, and the date for filing the additional written statement was then fixed on July 3, 2013. However, even on this date, due to certain reasons, the applicant could not file the additional written statement and the matter was adjourned till November 12, 2013, for filing suggested issues and framing of issues.
h. In any case, the applicant had reasons to believe that the order dated March 11, 2013 was required to be corrected and/or modified as certain words were subsequently deleted in the said order by criss-crossing on the order sheet. The same was also pointed to this Court by the applicant.
i. By virtue of such subsequent deletions in the order sheet, it is the applicant’s case that she was deprived of her opportunity to file the additional written statement to the amended plaint. Therefore, the applicant filed an application on March 11, 2014 under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for recalling and modification of order dated March 11, 2013 with a prayer to grant leave to the applicant to file an additional written statement. The applicant also prayed to keep the directions for framing of issues in abeyance.
j. By an order dated May 5, 2015, the applicant’s application for waiver of costs imposed on March 23, 2015, was considered and rejected. In the said order, the application for recalling and/or modification of the order dated March 11, 2013, was allowed and the order dated March 11, 2013 / May 24, 2013, was set aside, and June 05, 2015 was fixed for filing additional written statement to the amended plaint. On June 05, 2015, the date to file additional written statement was further extended to July 23, 2015.
k. On July 23, 2015, the applicant filed another application under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, for modification of the order dated May 05, 2015 to t
The judgment emphasizes the limited scope of review, the distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record, and the need to correct wrongs committed to prevent....
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
The power of review is limited to correcting apparent errors on the record and cannot be used to rehash arguments or findings that have been previously settled.
Point of law: 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 seeki....
The primary prayer in both recall applications was substantially the recall of the order dated December 6, 2018, and the Court rejected the second recall application on the ground of constructive res....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of review jurisdiction, emphasizing the requirement for a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and the court's ina....
A review petition can be allowed if an application for additional evidence was overlooked, constituting an error apparent on the record.
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
