Point of Law: Power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a new. Such powers can be exercised within limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power

JUDGMENT :

Ref: Civil Misc. Review Application No. 340686 of 2011

1. By way of this Review Application, applicant, Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. has sought review of the judgment and order dated 18.10.2011 passed by this Court (Coram: Justice Sunil Ambwani and Justice Kashi Nath Pandey) in First Appeal From Order No. 3400 of 2011 (Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. vs. Smt. Sabari Begum).

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the review-applicant that the Court has not properly appreciated the matter and judgment is not correct.

3. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner (review) and gone through the grounds taken in the Review Application, we find that virtually there is an attempt to re-argue the matter which is not permissible in a Review Application. An application for review cannot be treated to be an opportunity to argue the case on merits afresh. In the garb of a review application re-argument on merits of the case cannot be allowed. We are even fortified in our view by the following authoritative pronouncements.

4. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 the Court said:

“A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.”

5. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma, 1979 (4) SCC 389 the Court said:

“......there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of Appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court.”

6. Again, in Meera Bhanja vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, AIR 1995 SC 455 while quoting with approval the above passage from Abhiram Taleshwar Sharma vs. Abhiram Pishak Shartn (supra), the Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

7. In Parsion Devi and Others vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, 1997 (8) SCC 715 it was held that an error, which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise powers of review in exercise of review jurisdiction.

8. In Rajendra Kumar vs. Rambai, AIR 2003 SC 2095, the Apex Court has observed about limited scope of judicial intervention at the time of review of the judgment and said:

“The limitations on exercise of the power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed.”

9. Thus, Review is not an appeal in disguise. Rehearing of the matter is impermissible in the garb of review. It is an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. In Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Court said that power of review can be exercised for correct