Review proceedings cannot substitute a court's earlier decision and must establish a clear, apparent error in the record without introducing new grounds.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

2. This Civil Review application has been filed for reviewing the judgment dated 01.12.2020 passed in W.P. (S.) No.3532 of 2019 whereby the said writ petition has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that against the writ court’s order the petitioner herein has preferred the LPA and the LPA was withdrawn with liberty to seek remedy by filing review or any another remedy permissible under law and pursuant to that the review petition has been filed. He further submits that all the points have not been raised in the writ petition and in view of that he may kindly be allowed to argue the review on merit.

4. Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ court’s order may kindly be reviewed.

5. Mr. Das, submits that there is no apparent error in the order of the writ court. He further submits that no ground has been taken in the writ petition and only ground is taken that the criminal case is pending in the CBI Court. He submits that it is well settled that a new ground cannot be taken by way of filing the review petition and review can be made, if there is apparent error on the face of the record.

6. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the BCCL relied in the case of Perry Kansagra versus Smriti Madan Kansagra reported in (2019) 20 SCC 753 wherein at paragraph No.15, it has been held as under :-

15. As regards the first issue, relying on the decisions of this Court in Inderchand Jain (dead) through Lrs. vs. Motilal (dead) through Lrs. 2, Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and others 3 and Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and others4, it was submitted by the appellant that the exercise of review jurisdiction was not warranted at all.

15.1 In Inderchand Jainit was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 are as under:-

“10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.

11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India5 this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para “56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise.”

33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under:

“The law on the subject—exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder:

(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 CPC.

(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 (2000) 6 SCC 224 Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably 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 includ