Point of Law: Power of review may be necessitated by way of invoking doctrine ''actus curiae neminem gravabit' which means that no act of the court in the course of whole of the proceedings does an injury to suitors in court.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Sri Chandra Bhooshan, learned counsel for opposite parties/respondents.

2. This review petition has been filed by the defendant appellants for review of the judgment and decree dated 14.08.2003 passed by this Court in Second Appeal no. 224 of 1986 in Re: Chandra Bhan and others versus Aditya Prakash and others, by which the defendant-appellants’ appeal was dismissed.

3. The review was admitted and the execution of the decree was stayed till the next date of listing, vide order dated 02.11.2006.

4. Sri Avadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the review-applicant submits that the second appeal was an admitted second appeal, which could not be decided without framing any substantial question of law which is a mandatory requirement for decision of second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure. He has placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Nazir Mohammad vs. J. Kamala and Ors. [2020 (38) LCD 1969 (SC)].

5. The second appeal was admitted by order dated 02.04.1986, however, any substantial question of law was not framed, neither at the time of admission nor at any time thereafter. Judgment dated 14.08.2003 also does not frame any substantial question of law. In Nazir Mohammad (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that a condition precedent for entertaining and deciding of second appeal is the existence of a substantial question of law. In Kondiba Dagadu Kadam vs. Savitribai Sopan Gujar [(1999) 3 SCC 722], the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the High Court is oblized to satisfy itself regarding the existence of a substantial question of law. If satisfied, the High Court has to formulate the substantial question of law involved in the case. The appeal is required to be heard on the question, so formulated.

6. The basic principles in which review application can be entertained and cannot be entertained have been eloquently laid down by Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati [(2013) 8 SCC 320]. Paragraph 20 under the heading "summary of principles" is being reproduced hereunder:-

20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275]

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petiti