ARMED FORCES TRIBUNAL, REGIONAL BENCH, JAIPUR

22.

RA No 13/2024 in OA No 164/2013 Smt Sushila Devi, Wd/o (missing presumed dead) No-6917121Y Sep Ram Prasad, R/o VPO-Chhittosa, Distt-Jhunjhunu (Raj) …. Applicant Versus

1. The Union of India, through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence, South Block, Govt of India, New Delhi - 110011

2. The PCDA (P), Allahabad (UP) - 211014

3. The OIC Records, Records The AOC Secunderabad (AP) – 500021

4. Commanding Officer, 9 FOD, C/o 56 APO …. Respondents For Applicant : Mr SB Singh/Ms. Savita Singh, Advocate For Respondents : Mr Pyare Lal, Advocate, Proxy for Mr Gajendra Sharma, Advocate CORAM:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE GOVERDHAN BARDHAR, MEMBER (J)

HON’BLE MR. SANJIV MITTAL, MEMBER (A)

O R D E R

18.02.2025 RA No 13/2024

1. By way of this Application under Section 18 of the Armed Forces Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 2008, read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, the Applicant has filed this RA for Review of Order dt 22.08.2024 passed by this Tribunal in OA No

164/2013.

2. OA No 164/2013 was disposed by this Tribunal vide Order dt 22.08.2024 with the directions thus ”the applicant prays for permission to seek declaration from the Competent Court with regard to the status of alive or dead of the husband of the applicant and, thereafter, take appropriate remedy available to the applicant to get pensionary benefits to her for more than 18 years of service rendered by her husband in the Army prior to his desertion from service”. The Applicant submits that as per statement of Respondents, her husband Sep Ram Prasad (missing, presumed dead) was granted leave from 14.12.2000 to 26.12.2000 but he did not report back after availing his leave and, hence, after declaring him a Deserter, he was dismissed from Service wef 15.04.2004. An FIR for missing of her husband, Sep Ram Prasad (missing and presumed dead) was lodged on 22.01.2003 by the mother of Sep Ram Prasad and he has not been seen or heard of him since then. The Applicant submits that as per Rule 108 of Indian Evidence Act, 1982 when a person is not seen or heard of for seven years by those who would naturally have heard of him if he had been alive, the burden of proving that he is alive is shifted to the person who affirms it. Further, in compliance of this Tribunal Order dt 26.09.2023, Superintendent of Police, Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan) vide letter dt 19.01.2024 also confirmed that FIR for missing of Sep Ram Prasad was lodged on 22.01.2003 and he has not been seen or heard of since then and his status of being alive or dead is not known. Moreover, the Tribunal have the powers as are vested in a Civil Court under Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (5 of 1908) for review of its orders. In view of the aforesaid facts, the Applicant has filed this Review Application.

3. We have heard Learned Counsels for both the parties and perused the material placed on record.

4. It is settled law that in exercise of Review jurisdiction, the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are possible in a matter. In Review jurisdiction, the Hon’ble Apex Court in series of decisions observed that the review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320, the principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized as under:-

“20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted in Chajju Ram Vs Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius &