Back
2018 Supreme(Ori) 585
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
VINEET SARAN, C.J. AND Dr. B.R. SARANGI, J.
RVWPET NO. 6 OF 2006
In the matter of an application under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for review of order dated 21.09.2005 passed in OJC No. 5652 of 1998.
Decided on 26th June, 2018.
M/s Central Electricity Supply
Company of Orissa Ltd.
and others … Petitioners
Versus
Pramod Kumar Swain … Opp. Party
For Petitioners:M/s. B.K. Pattnaik, P. Sinha, P.K. Sahoo and R.K. Nayak, Advocates
For Opp. party :M/s. S. Behera and S.Mohanty, Advocates
Headnote:1. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Sec. 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 - Scope of review being very limited in nature, if the principle, which is applicable to mean (1) if the judgment is vitiated by an error apparent on the face of the record in the sense that it is evident on a mere looking at the record without any long-drawn process of reasoning, review application is maintainable; (2) if there is a serious irregularity in the proceeding, such as violation of the principles of natural justice, a review application can be entertained and (3) if a mistake is committed by an erroneous assumption of a fact which if allowed to stand, cause miscarriage of justice, then also an application for review can be entertained. (Paras - 10)
2. REVIEW - In the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to reopen the case and to gain a full-fledged innings for making submissions, nor review lies merely on the ground that may be possible for the Court to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier - If a case has been decided after full consideration of the arguments made by a Counsel, he cannot be permitted even in the garb of doing justice or substantial justice to engage the Court again to decide the controversy already decided - If a party is aggrieved by a judgment, it must approach the higher Court but entertaining a review to reconsider the case would amount to exceeding its jurisdiction conferred under the limited jurisdiction for the purpose of review. (Paras - 15)
JUDGMENT
Dr. B.R. SARANGI, J. - The review petitioners, who were the opposite parties in the writ petition, have filed this application seeking review of order dated 21.09.2005 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in OJC No. 5652 of 1998, on the ground that the judgment, basing upon which the writ Court directed for consideration of the case of the opposite party herein for compassionate appointment, having been modified by the Full Bench, the opposite party is not entitled to get any benefit.
2. The factual matrix of the case, in hand, is that the opposite party herein, as the petitioner, filed OJC No. 5652 of 1998 seeking employment under the Rehabilitation Assistance Scheme on account of death of his father, who died on 06.04.1997 while working as a Helper under GRIDCO (Grid Corporation of Odisha). The writ Court by order dated 21.09.2005, relying upon a judgment of this Court in Prakash Kumar Debata v. the Executive Engineer (Gridco) and others, 87 (1999) CLT 573, disposed of the said writ petition directing the review petitioners to consider the case of the opposite party for compassionate appointment according to his qualification and fulfillment of other criteria within a stipulated period.
3. Mr. B.K. Pattnaik, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that in the case of Prakash Kumar Debata mentioned supra this Court was pleased to make applicable the Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 to the GRIDCO on the basis of Rule 11 of the said Rules. Consequentially, even though the GRIDCO Rehabilitation Assistance Rules have been repealed, but by application of Orissa Civil Service (Rehabilitation Assistance) Rules, 1990 the employees of GRIDCO are being extended the benefit of compassionate appoint. But subsequently, by order dated 09.05.2002 passed in OJC No. 2520 of 2002 (Sunita Puhan v. CMD, CESCO) this Court expressed a doubt with regard to correctness of the decision in the case of Prakash Kumar Debata (supra) and stated that the decision requires re-consideration and accordingly, referred the matter to the Full Bench. It is contended that the Full Bench of this Court held that the case of Prakash Kumar Debta is not applicable to the employees of CESCO and therefore, the order dated 21.09.2005 passed by this Court be reviewed and at best if the writ petitioner so likes may get the benefit of the Rules framed by the GRIDCO applicable to CESCO for grant of financial benefit as compensation and not compassionate appointment.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the records, a preliminary query was made by this Court as to whether the review application has been filed after disposal of the Full Bench judgment, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the review application has been filed after disposal of the case of Prakash Kumar Debta by the Full Bench. By the time the instant writ petition was disposed of on 21.09.2005, the Full Bench judgment in the case of Prakash Kumar Debta had not seen the light of the day.
5. This being the factual matrix of the case, in hand, it is at the outset necessary to go through the scope of the review application. In this context, it is relevant to refer to Section 114 read with Order-XLVII, Rule-1 of the C.P.C.
“114.Review.-
Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code’ or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit
ORDER XLVII
1. 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 no appeal has been preferred;
(b) by a decre
