ANUPAM KUMAR TRIVEDI vs SESSION JUDGE LUCKNOW

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2015 Supreme(All) 1681

ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
(Lucknow Bench)
BEFORE : SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN AND ADITYA NATH MITTAL, JJ.
ANUPAM KUMAR TRIVEDI ....Petitioner
Versus
SESSION JUDGE LUCKNOW AND OTHERS ....Respondents
(Review Petition No. 6 of 2015, decided on 19th February, 2015)

Advocates:
Counsel :
A.K. Trivedi (In Person) for the Petitioner.

Headnote:Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Order 47, Rule 1—Review—Scope—Scope of review is very limited and this jurisdiction can be invoked only, if there is mistake or error apparent on face of record—And, there is no error apparent on face of record of judgment. [Paras 2 and 3]
Result; Review Petition Dismissed.

JUDGMENT

By the Court.—Heard learned counsel for the review-petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel.

2. This is a petition for review of the order dated 8.12.2014. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases in Meera Bhanja (Smt.) v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary (Smt.), (1995) 1 SCC 170 and Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, (1997) 8 SCC 715, has held that the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is very limited and this jurisdiction can be invoked only, if there is mistake or error apparent on the face of record. In the instant case, there is no error apparent on the face of record of the judgment.

3. The review petition is devoid of merits. It is accordingly dismissed.

——————

Click Here to Read the rest of this document