Back
2008 Supreme(Ori) 1186
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
S. Panda, I.M. Quddusi, JJ.
SMT. SUDHA KAUR - APPELLANT
Versus
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF ORISSA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, COLLECTOR AND TAHASILDAR - RESPONDENT
Decided On : 31-01-2008
Omission to cite an authority of law is not a ground for review, and review cannot be sought on the ground of discovery of new authority which shows that the decision is not correct.
Headnote:
Review Application - Legal Precedent - The court dismissed the review application, stating that the omission to cite an authority of law is not a ground for review, and review cannot be sought on the ground of discovery of new authority which shows that the decision is not correct.
Fact of the Case:
The review application was filed to review a judgment dismissing a writ petition, citing the omission to present certain decisions of the Supreme Court during the original hearing.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the omission to cite an authority of law is not a ground for review, and review cannot be sought on the ground of discovery of new authority which shows that the decision is not correct.
Issues: The main issue was whether the review application should be granted based on the omission to present certain decisions of the Supreme Court during the original hearing.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that review cannot be sought on the ground of discovery of new authority which shows that the decision is not correct, and the purpose of a review application cannot be a rehearing for the purpose of adopting a different conclusion on merits.
Final Decision: The review application was dismissed.
ORDER
1. The matter out of which this application arises was never before this Hon'ble Court in the present.
2. This review application has been filed by the Writ Petitioner to review the Judgment dated 20.12.2007 passed in W.P.(C) No. 9975 of 2006 whereby this Court dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the Petitioner being devoid of merit.
The Learned Counsel for the review Petitioner submits that he was not able to place some decisions of the Supreme Court at the time of hearing of the writ application. As such, the aforesaid order needs further consideration.
Law is well settled that the omission to cite an authority of law is not a ground to review the earlier Judgment saying that there is an error apparent on the face of the record since Learned Counsel has committed an error in not bringing to the notice of the Court the relevant Precedent (See Dokka Samuel Vs. Dr Jacob Lazarus Chelly, ).
3. No doubt, review can be maintainable on the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge, or could not be produced at the time of Judgment but not on the ground that the legal authority in existence on the date of Judgment could not be brought to the notice of the Court. Also no review can be asked on the ground of discovery of new authority which shows that decision is not correct. It goes without saying that the purpose of review application cannot be "rehearing" for the purpose of saying whether a different conclusion on merits could be adopted.
4. Considering the same, the review application is dismissed accordingly.
Final Result : Dismissed
