Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
Vishal Mishra, J.
Vinod Kumar Rawat and Ors. – Appellants
Versus
Sheela Sahu and Ors. – Respondents
R.P. No. 1163 of 2020
Decided On : 12-01-2021
Review Petition - Scope of Review - Order 47 Rule 1, Section 114 CPC - No interference made by the Court - AIR 2000 SC 1650, 2014 (5) SCC 75 - Limited scope of interference, no error apparent on the face of the record - Dismissal of review petition
Fact of the Case:
The review petition challenges the order passed by the Court in a civil revision, alleging that the civil suit will be in limitation if an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is allowed. The petitioners argue that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, and seek to set aside the impugned order and restore the civil revision to be heard again on merits. The respondents oppose the prayer, citing the limited scope of review and the absence of any apparent error on the face of the record.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the scope of interference in a review petition is very limited and can only be entertained when there is an error apparent on the face of the record or a typical error mistake. It emphasized that the Court cannot go into the merits of the case while rehearing the review petition. The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record and made no interference in the review petition, ultimately dismissing it.
Issues: The main issue was whether the review petition should be entertained based on the alleged error in the order passed by the Court in a civil revision.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court emphasized the limited scope of interference in a review petition, highlighting that the error must be apparent on the face of the record and not a mere error that requires detailed examination or scrutiny. It cited precedents to support its decision, emphasizing that the review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and that even an erroneous decision on a question of law attracts the doctrine of res judicata between the parties.
Final Decision: The Court made no interference in the review petition and dismissed it, along with the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
JUDGMENT :
Vishal Mishra, J.
1. In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this petition has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit.
2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard through Video Conferencing.
3. The present review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC has been preferred challenging the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by this Court in C.R. No. 841/2018, whereby the civil revision filed by the respondents was allowed. It is alleged that alongwith the civil suit an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is being filed by the plaintiff/petitioners wherein a detailed explanation with respect to delay in filing the civil suit is being given. If such an application is allowed by the learned trial Court then the civil suit will be in limitation. He has also preferred an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to explain the same before the learned trial Court. But the factum of filing and pendency of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of consideration of civil revision, in such circumstances, allowing the civil revision filed by the respondents and holding the civil suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and time barred. The review petition has been preferred. He submits that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, therefore, the same can only be proved by cogent evidence. It is argued that the aforesaid error is apparent on the face of the record for which could be taken into consideration at a liberal view and scope of review jurisdiction. He has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for restoring the civil revision to be heard again on merits.
4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and has argued that the scope of review is very limited. This Court while considering the civil revision has passed a detailed order dated 04.02.2020 considering all the arguments which have been addressed by the parties before this Court. The order in civil revision has been passed on 04.02.2020 and in the present review petition has been preferred in the month 11.12.2020 i.e. again the same is hopelessly barred by time. It is submitted that the order was passed on 04.02.2020, therefore, the review could have been filed upto 03.03.2020 but no efforts were made by the petitioners to file the same. Even otherwise scope of review is limited to correcting the typical error or any other error which is apparent on the face of the record but the Court can not go into merits of the case even the judgment or the order passed by the Court is found to be erroneous. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650 and Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others in Civil Appeal No. 10621 of 2013, (2014 (5) SCC 75). Learned counsel for the respondents has prayed for dismissal of the civil revision.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
6. With respect to the law regarding scope of interference in review petition is concerned, the law is settled to the effect that there is a very limited scope and jurisdiction to entertain the review petition and can only be entertained when there is any error which is apparent on the face of the record or there is any to correct the typical error mistake which has occurred. The Court cannot go into the merits of the case while rehearing the review petition. It is also settled that even if the judgment or the order passed by this Court is wrong o
The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of interference in a review petition, emphasizing that the error must be apparent on the face of the record and not a mere error ....
The court may condone delays in legal proceedings due to extraordinary circumstances like a pandemic, provided the applicant shows sufficient justification.
The law of limitation is based on the principle that parties should seek their remedy promptly, and the courts are not to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds.
The scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record, and detailed discussion of citations in the order is not necessary.
Diligence and urgency are crucial in pursuing legal remedies, and the absence of satisfactory explanation and good faith may lead to the dismissal of an application for condonation of delay.
A court must condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before considering applications under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to ensure jurisdictional compliance.
Review petitions must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record and cannot introduce new arguments not previously raised.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
