I.A. No. 8152 of 2017

1. This interlocutory application has been preferred under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of 700 days in preferring this Civil Review Application.

2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the reasons stated in this interlocutory application especially in paragraph nos. 3, 4 and 5, there are reasonable reasons for condonation of delay. I, therefore, condone the delay of 700 days in preferring this Civil Review Application.

3. I.A. No. 8152 of 2017 is, therefore, allowed and disposed of.

Civil Review No. 29 of 2017

1. This Civil Review application has been preferred for modification/review of an order passed by this Court dated 13.4.2015 in I.A. No. 1038 of 2010 in Company Petition No. 3 of 2003.

2. Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that during pendency of Company Petition No. 3 of 2003, interlocutory application was preferred by this applicant for vacating or modifying the order of status quo granted by this Court vide order dated 11.12.2009 in Company Petition No. 3 of 2003 for the land admeasuring 1.5 acres of land situated at Industrial Plot No. NS-6, Phase-V, Adityapur Industrial Area.

3. Looking to paragraph 5 of the order dated 13.4.2015, I see no reason to modify or review the said order because Company Petition No. 3 of 2003 is already pending and the same can be heard by the learned Single Judge upon mentioning of the matter. Moreover, there is no error apparent on the face of record. There is no patent error in an order under review. This Civil Review application is not an appeal in disguise. No cogent reason has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner for reviewing the order passed by this Court dated 13.4.2015 in I.A. No. 1038 of 2010. Even otherwise also, status quo order granted by this Court dated 11.12.2009 in Company Petition No. 3 of 2003 has been continued till today.

4. It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aibam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389 in paragraph 3, which reads as under:

"3. The Judicial Commissioner gave two reasons for reviewing his predecessors order. The first was that his predecessor had overlooked two important documents Exs.A1 and A-3 which showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites even in the year 1948-49 and that the grants must have been made even by then. The second was that there was a patent illegality in permitting the appellant to question, in a single writ petition, settlement made in favour of different respondents. We are afraid that neither of the reasons mentioned by the learned Judicial Commissioner constitutes a ground for review. It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh vs. State of Punjab there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. 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 seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found, it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."

(Emphasis supplied)

5. It has also been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kum