IMPORTANT POINT
Review of judgment – A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’ – Power of review could be exercised to correct a mistake but not to substitute a view.

JUDGMENT

Review of the judgement dated 28th December 2021,dismissing writ petition, bearing WP(C) No.30/2021, titled as Megha Thakur v. Shanker Dass and others, is sought for on the grounds made mention of in the instant petition.

2. The case set up by review petitioner, as is also gatherable from perusal of the file, is that a suit for partition by metes and bounds was filed by Anjana Rani – respondent no.10 (mother of review petitioner). It is claimed that petitioner, who was minor, along with her sister (proforma respondent no.11 herein) preferred a suit through her natural guardian and during pendency of suit, a compromise was arrived at between parties, followed by issuance of compromise deed dated 16th August 2019. It is averred that when petitioner attained the age of majority, she on 29th March 2019, directed an Appeal before the court of Principal District Judge, Reasi, along with an application for condoning delay. Appeal, however, was withdrawn on 27th January 2021, on the context that she would approach Trial Court (Judicial Magistrate 1st Class. On 5th February 2021, review petitioner approached Trial Court for setting-aside the judgement and decree dated 16th August 2018. Review petitioner failed as the Trial Court vide order dated 28th August 2021, dismissed the suit of review petitioner by relying on the provisions of Order XXIII Rule 3-A CPC. Review petitioner preferred a petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, to throw challenge to the order dated 28th August 2021. A Bench of this Court vide judgement dated 28th December 2021 dismissed the petition, of which review is sought here.

3. I have heard learned counsel for petitioner and considered the matter.

4. Learned counsel appearing for review petitioner has stated that judgement 28th December 2021, of which review is sought herein, is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court in R. Janakiammal v. S. K. Kumarasamy, 2021 (7) Scale 574 as it has been held therein that the only remedy available to a party to a consent decree to avoid such consent decree is to approach the court which recorded the compromise and made a decree in terms thereof and establish that there was no compromise, in that event the court which recorded the compromise will establish, consider and decide the question as to whether there was a valid compromise or not. According to learned counsel for review petitioner, a consent decree is a contract between parties with the seal of approval of the court and that the validity of consent decree depends wholly on the validity of agreement or compromise, on which it is made.

5. It is pertinent to mention here that while considering abovementioned contentions, the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to be taken into consideration.

6. The grounds on which review can be sought are enumerated in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, which reads as under:—

“1. Application for review of judgment.—(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the court which passed the decree or made the order.”

7. An application for review would lie, among others, when an order/judgement suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. Limitations on exercise of po