Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KAINTHLA
Bainsu (since deceased) – Appellant
Versus
Budhia – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Rakesh Kainthla, J.
The petitioner has filed the present review petition asserting that he had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for leading additional evidence, which was registered as CMP No. 5735 of 2018; however, this application was not decided by the Court. This is an error apparent on the face of the record; hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Court in RSA No. 36/2007 dated 08.09.2007 be recalled.
2. No reply to the petition was filed.
3. Heard.
4. The scope of the review was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd., (2024) 7 SCC 315: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1090, and it was observed at page 342:
37. Read in conjunction with Section 114 CPC, Order 47 Rule 1 thereof has three broad components which need to be satisfied to set the ball for a review in motion — (i) “who” means the person applying must demonstrate that he is a person aggrieved; (ii) “when”, means the circumstances a review could be sought; and (iii) “why”, means the grounds on which a review of the order/decree ought to be made. Finally comes the “what”, meaning thereby the order the co
A review petition can be allowed if an application for additional evidence was overlooked, constituting an error apparent on the record.
Review jurisdiction requires a party to be aggrieved and for there to be a mistake apparent on the record to justify corrections in the previous order.
Point of law: The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeki....
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue the merits of a case.
The power of review under Order 47 of the CPC is not a mechanism for appeal and is limited to apparent errors and significant new evidence.
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.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
