SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2015 Supreme(All) 1681

SATYENDRA SINGH CHAUHAN, ADITYA NATH MITTAL
ANUPAM KUMAR TRIVEDI – Appellant
Versus
SESSION JUDGE LUCKNOW – Respondent


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

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

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top