A review can only be sought if there is an error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment or if there is a new fact which, despite due diligence, could not have been discovered before the judgment was passed.

JUDGMENT

Review Pet. 9/2023 (filed by Defendant) in CS(COMM) 567/2021

1. This review petition seeks review of judgment dated 4th January 2023 passed by this Court in IA 14683/2021, under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC, in CS(COMM) 567/2021.

2. The averments made in this application read as under:

"1. It is most respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court vide final order dated 4.01.2023 was pleased to allow the application of the Plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and granted interim injunction against the Defendant.

2. By way of the present application, the Defendant seeks review of the final order dated 04.01.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court on the ground that the counsel for the Defendant failed to specifically cite a binding precedent being the judgment of the Full Bench of our own High Court in Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. v. Wyeth Ltd., FAO (OS) 458/2009, which has complete application on the case at hand.

3. It is most respectfully submitted that failure to notice an earlier binding precedent constitutes an error of law and error apparent on the face of the record.

4. It is most respectfully submitted that the defendant is suffering both financially and with respect to its market standing and reputation and non-reliance upon the aforementioned judgment is causing irreparable damage to the Defendant.

5. In light of the same, it is humbly submitted that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to consider the said judgment and review its decision rendered vide Order dated 4.01.2023 in the interest of justice and in order to avoid miscarriage of justice.

6. In view of the above circumstances, it is therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:

a. review its order dated 4.01.2023;

b. pass such other further order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case may also be passed in favor of the Defendant."

3. Clearly, this application does not subscribe to the requirements of the review application as envisaged by Section 114 read with order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.

4. All that it says is that the defendant failed to specifically cite a binding precedent in Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd. v. Wyeth Ltd. It does not state how the precedent is applicable or as to how, if the precedent were to apply, the judgment would be different or any of the findings in the judgment would resultantly be erroneous.

5. A review can lie only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record of the judgment, or if there is new fact which, despite due diligence, could not have been discovered before the judgment came to be passed. Merely citing the decision of the Full Bench of this Court without citing how the decision apply or how, applying the decision, the impugned judgment would suffer from the error apparent on the basis of the record, cannot justify seeking of a review.

6. For want of material particulars, therefore, and reserving the right of the defendant to file an appropriate application/petition, if so instructed, this review petition is dismissed.