A review petition should strictly adhere to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1, and the grounds for maintainable review as stipulated by the statute.

JUDGMENT :

Heard Mr. N. Dhar, learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as Ms. R. Choudhury, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. This is an application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for reviewing the order of this Court dated 17.11.2021 passed by this Court in CRP(I/O)/77/2019.

3. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides.

4. Now, the question arises whether the powers of review provided by Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC can be applied in the present case.

5. A brief visit to the relevant provision would be fruitful. Order 47, Rule 1 reads as under –

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 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.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree on 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 respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for there view.

[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.]

6. In S. Bagirathi Ammal vs Palani Roman Catholic Mission, reported in 2009 (10) SCC 464, referring to the provisions under Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C. the Hon,ble Supreme Court has held –

“A reading of the above provision makes it clear that Review is permissible (a) from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence could not be produced by the party at the time when the decree was passed; (b) on account of some mistake; (c) where error is apparent on the face of the record or is a palpable wrong; (d) any other sufficient reason. If any of the conditions satisfy, the party may apply for a review of the judgment or order of the Court which passed the decree or order. The provision also makes it clear that an application for Review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. An error contemplated under the Rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. When does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the Court. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the appellant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled re-hearing of the same issue but the issue can be decided just by a perusal of the records and if it is manifest can be set at right by reviewing the order.”

7. In Inderchand Jain (D) Th.Lrs. vs Motila