( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 21-7-2003 passed in MJC No. 31/ 2003 by District Judge, Ujjain, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for review of judgment and decree dated 31-1-2003 passed by District Judge, Ujjain in Civil Suit no. 1-B/2000 was allowed, the present revision has been filed.

( 2 ) SHORT facts of the case are that respondents filed the suit for declaration and injunction towards illegal recovery cf central Excise Duty on the goods sold against the petitioner. The suit was opposed by the present petitioners on various grounds, including on the ground that the matter relates to recovery of excise under the provisions of Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, hence, in view of S. 11-B (5 ). the Civil Court is having no jurisdiction. It was prayed that suit be dismissed. Learned Court below framed the issues and vide judgment and decree dated 21-7-2003 dismissed the suit on account of want of jurisdiction. Thereafter on 31-1-2003 an application for review was filed under S. 161, C. P. C. for recalling of judgment and decree, which was numbered as 31/2003 MJC and was allowed vide order dated 31-7-2003, against which the present revision is filed.

( 3 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner submits that S. 11-B (5) of the Central excises and Salt Act, 1944 reads as under :-"notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in any judgment, decree, order or direction of the Appellate Tribunal or any Court or in any other provision of this Act or the Rules made thereunder or any other law for the time being in force. no refund shall be made except as provided in sub-section (2 ). "it is submitted that the revised section was amended on 20-9-1991. Thereafter, on the same date sub-section (5) was amended which reads as under :-"notwithstanding anything contained in any other law, the provisions of this section shall also apply to a claim for refund of any amount collected as duty of excise made on the ground that the goods in respect of which such amount was collected were not excisable or were entitled to exemption from duty and no Court shall leave any jurisdiction in respect of such claim. "

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel submits that apart from this in view of the law laid down by hon'ble Supreme Court passed by Seven-Judges of Supreme Court in the case of 1997 (98) ELT 247, Mafatlal Industries Ltd. v. Union of India, wherein it was observed by hon'ble Supreme Court that,"the jurisdiction of a Civil Court is expressly barred vide sub-section (5) of S. 11-B, prior to its amendment in 1991 and subsection (3) of S, 11-B, as amended in 1991. "

( 5 ) IN view of this learned counsel submits that the order of recalling the judgment and decree dated 31-1-2003 was not correct. It is further submitted that after hearing the parties on merits at length, the learned Court below passed the judgment and decree holding that Civil Court has no jurisdiction, which could not have been reversed under S, 151. C. PC.

( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant placed reliance on the decision reported in the matter of Parsion Devi v. Sumitra Devi, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715. wherein the hon'ble Apex Court has observed as under:-Under O. 47, R. 1, C. P. C. a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on (he face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under O. 47, R. 1, C. P. C. In exercise of the jurisdiction under O. 47. R. 1. C. P. C. it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected. " There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document