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.

JUDGMENT :

PARTHIVJYOTI SAIKIA, J.

Heard the learned senior counsel Mr. R.C. Siakia appearing for the review petitioner. Also heard the learned counsel Mr. H.K. Sarma appearing for the respondent.

2. The present petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for reviewing the judgment and order passed by this Court on 22.03.2022 in RFA No.123/2017 (D/O).

3. For better understanding of review of a judgment as contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, let me visit the said provision.

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. Order 47, Rule 1 reads as under –

“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 their 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.]”

5. In Board of Control for Cricket in India & Anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club & Ors. [ (2005) 4 SCC 741 ], it has been held that the Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such 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.

6. In Inderchand Jain (D) Th.Lrs. vs Motilal (D) Th.Lrs [ (2009)14 SCC 663) , the Supreme Court reiterated the principles of review in this way –

“(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C.

(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may be conceivable be two opinions.

(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.

(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an Advocate.

(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine `actus curiae neminem gravabit'."

7. The phrase ‘actus curiae neminem gr