The grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 11 of the CPC must meet the specified criteria, and judgments relied upon must be relevant and not distinguishable to support a review petition.

JUDGMENT (Oral)

REVIEW PET. 174/2022

1. This petition seeks review of the following order passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 7th February 2019:

"After arguments, this appeal is disposed of as not pressed."

2. Mr. Vivek Kohli, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant-review petitioner has relied on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Abhimanyoo Ram v. State of U.P., (2008) 17 SCC 73 and U.O.I. v. Mohan Rocky Springwater Breweries Ltd., (2011) 15 SCC 229 to press his review petition.

3. On the face of it, no case for review can be said to be made out.

4. The only ground that has been urged in the present review petition, and as urged by Mr. Vivek Kohli, is that the learned Counsel for the appellant had no instructions not to press the appeal. He submits that, as the order under review has been passed in a Regular First Appeal, the appellant should not be deprived his right to canvass the appeal on merits.

5. I regret my inability to agree.

6. It is important to note that the impugned order is not a simplicitor order dismissing the appeal as not pressed. It reads "after arguments, this appeal is disposed of as not pressed". It is obvious, at a plain reading, that learned Counsel had attempted to argue the matter and, on finding that the Court was not in sync, chose, instead of inviting an adverse order, not to press the appeal.

7. If such an order is to be permitted to be reopened by way of a review petition, it will give rise to the pernicious potentiality of forum shopping, as a party could, after finding it impossible to convince one Court, withdraw the matter and reopen the entire issue by filing a review petition before another Bench. Needless to say, any order Explanation.--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. which can result in such a possibility cannot be passed by a Court.

8. There is yet another reason why the impugned order cannot be upset in review. Even if it were to be presumed that the order was a simplicitor order of withdrawal, I am extremely doubtful as to whether, in a review petition, such an order could be reversed. Else, the situation that would arise is that a statement made by a Counsel, seeking to withdraw an appeal or a petition or any other proceeding as not pressed, would lose all sanctity, and can never be accepted by a Court. Even if such a statement is accepted, and the proceeding is disposed of as not pressed, the order would become reviewable, merely on the litigant stating that he never instructed the Counsel to make such a statement.

9. The present application having been filed in a First Appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), a review would lie only within the parameters of Order XLVII Rule 1¹[1. Application for review of judgment.-- (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, or 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 of the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respon