1987 Supreme(MP) 736

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
P.C. Pathak, J.
Krishanrao - Petitioner
Vs.
Parwatibai - Respondent
C.R. No. 151 of 1986 (I)
Decided On : 14-07-1987

Headnote:(1) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – O.47, R.1 and S.141 – right of review – not a matter of procedure – cannot be exercised by invoking aid of S.141.

       (2) Accommodation Control Rules, 1966 (M.P.) – R.16 – Accommodation Control Act, 1961 (M.P.) – S.29 – power of review to RCA – not available under these provisions.

       (3) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – S.152 – power to correct errors – available to RCA.

        Short Note

       Under a mis – apprehension as to the scope of section 23 – J, the RCA also passed an order directing the eviction suit of the non – applicant against the applicant to be transferred to the civil Court. Some time later on behalf of the non – applicant – landlady an application was made for review of the said order, inasmuch as the eviction suit filed by the widow was allowed to remain and had to be disposed of by the RCA himself. After hearing both the parties, the RCA allowed the application and recalled his order and thereby be directed that the eviction suit will be tried and disposed of by him. Aggrieved by this order, the applicant tenant filed the present revision inter alia on the ground that the RCA has no power of review and the remedy of the non – applicant – landlady was only to file a revision against the said order of transfer before the High Court.

       2. Held : I have perused the record in the light of grounds urged in the memo or revision. After giving my anxious consideration, I do not find any merit in this revision. It is correct that there is no power of review in the M.P. Accommodation Control Act in exercise of which the RCA could pass the order as passed by him. It is a settled law that a right of review is, like a right of appeal, a substantive right and not a matter of procedure and that, therefore, order 47, rule 1 CPC cannot be applied by invoking the aid of section 141 CPC to applications for review of orders in proceedings other than suit. See also Devi Prasad v. Khelawan (AIR 1957 All 67).

       3. The learned counsel for the non – applicant drew my attention to rule 16 of the Rules framed by the State Government in exercise of powers conferred on it by section 50 of the M.P. Accommodation Control Act.

       4. The learned counsel for the non – applicant also relied on section 29 of the Act to submit that RCA shall have the same powers as are vested in Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in respect of matter enumerated therein. He, therefore, submitted that the RCA could review the order earlier passed by him. I am unable to agree with this submission. So far as Rule 16 is concerned, all that it provides is that for the purposes of procedure, the RCA in the absence of any specific provision, be guided by the provisions laid down in the Civil Procedure Code. As pointed out by me above, the power of review like power of appeal is a substantive right and does not relate to procedure. That being so, the RCA does not enjoy the power to review any order passed by him.

       5. The learned counsel for the non – applicant next referred to section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code which confers inherent powers to correct clerical or arithmetical mistakes in orders or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission. There is weight in the submission of the learned counsel on this count. In Master construction Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Orissa and another (AIR 1966 SC 1047) the Supreme Court laid down that an accidental slip or omission is an error due to careless mistake or omission unintentionally made and that such mistake should be apparent on the face of the record. It should not depend for its discovery, on elaborate arguments on the question of law and fact. Therefore, in the present case all I have to find out is whether the error committed by the RCA in transferring the case to the Civil Court is such an error. In my opinion, the error committed by him was such which is covered by section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code and, therefore, he had an inherent right to correct the said error. AIR 1966 SC 1047 followed. Revision dismissed.