IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT, (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.
Union Of India, Rep. By The General Manager, N.F. Railway – Petitioner
Versus
M/s. P.P. Enterprise – Respondent
Review. Pet. No.4 Of 2022
Decided On : 29-08-2023
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 114, Order XLVII Rule 1 - Review of order - Criminal intervention en route before reaching destination - Application praying for reviewing order of this Court – Petitioner has treated this review application as an appeal by touching merit of case. Para 12.
Finding of the Court: Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a mistake on part of court may also call for a review of order - In guise of reviewing an order, a court cannot entertain an appeal - Petitioner has treated this review application as an appeal by touching merit of case - There is no error apparent on face of record to invite review of order under Order 47 Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code.
Result: Petition dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard Mr. G. Goswami, learned counsel representing the petitioner as well as Ms. M. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. This is an application under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for reviewing the order of this Court dated 25.11.2021 passed by this Court in MFA No.65/2015.
3. There was a short delivery of goods carried by the Railways. The counsel representing the petitioner admitted that there was criminal intervention en route before reaching the destination. Finally, the appeal was dismissed by this Court.
4. Now, the counsel representing the review petitioner has claimed that the counsel in the appeal never admitted occurrence of criminal intervention.
5. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsels of both sides.
6. 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.
7. A brief visit to the relevant provision would be fruitful. Order 47, Rule 1 reads as under –
(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.]
8. 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 –
S. Bagirathi Ammal vs Palani Roman Catholic Mission
Inderchand Jain (D) Th.Lrs. vs Motilal (D) Th.Lrs
‘Actus curiae neminem gravabit' means an act of Court shall prejudice no one.
Review under Order 47 of the CPC is limited to errors apparent on record or new evidence; disagreement with the judgment does not suffice for a review.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of review may only be exercised for specific reasons such as the discovery of new evidence, mistake, or error apparent on the face o....
A review petition can be allowed if an application for additional evidence was overlooked, constituting an error apparent on the record.
The scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record, and detailed discussion of citations in the order is not necessary.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.