JUDGMENT

Pankaj Jain, J.

CM-16765-2022 in RA-66-2022

2. This is an application filed under section 151 CPC for placing on record replication on behalf of the petitioner to the reply filed by the respondent No.2.

3. On the grounds mentioned in the application, the same is allowed.

4. Replication is taken on record.

RA-CW-No.66 of 2022

5. By way of present application filed under Section 114 read with Order 47, Rule 1 CPC the applicant-petitioner prays for review of the judgment dated 22.2.2022 whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioner was ordered to be dismissed. The petitioner claims that the provisions of Order 2, Rule 2 CPC were wrongly invoked to dismiss the writ petition filed by the petitioner.

6. Brief facts that need to be culled out for the adjudication of the present application are that the petitioner is aggrieved of the result whereby he was not found suitable for promotion/appointment to the post of Additional District and Sessions Judge. It is not disputed that the petitioner earlier filed writ petition claiming the same relief by way of CWP No.24282 of 2017. The same was dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 14.08.2018. The review application No. RA-CW-255 of 2018 was also dismissed vide order dated 3.10.2018. Special Leave Petition preferred by the petitioner against the said judgment also stands dismissed in limine. Present writ petition was filed seeking same relief claiming that the plea regarding assessment of judgments having been invalidly undertaken by respondent No.3 at its own level against the decision of Full Court authorizing six Member Committee of Hon'ble Judges could not be taken up by the petitioner as he came to know about the same only on 12.11.2018 after he received information under the provisions of RTI Act, 2005. This Court while dismissing the writ petition vide order dated 22.02.2022 on merits found that the plea of the petitioner about the validity, assessment and reliance upon the information received under RTI Act, 2005 was completely misplaced and the writ petition was barred by the principles of constructive res judicata.

7. In reply filed in the present application, the plea raised by the petitioner on merits has been denied and it has been claimed that the judgments of the petitioner were assessed by the administrative committee constituted of six Senior most Judges excluding the Chief Justice. However, a preliminary objection has been raised with respect to the maintainability of the application claiming that in the disguise of the review the petitioner is trying to claim re-hearing of the writ petition itself.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the record of the case.

9. The law with respect to exercise of jurisdiction of review is well settled. The Apex Court in the case of Sivakami and others v. State of Tamil Nadu and others 2018 (4) SCC 587 held as under :-

"20.The scope of the appellate powers and the review powers are well defined. The power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is very limited and it may be exercised only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power. The review petition/application cannot be decided like a regular intra court appeal. On the other hand, the scope of appeal is much wider wherein all the issues raised by the parties are open for examination by the Appellate Court

21. A fortiori, what was not decided in appeal by the Division Bench could not be decided by the Division Bench while deciding the review application. It is for this reason, we are also constrained to set aside the review order."

10. The same is ratio of law laid dow