Review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal to re-evaluate facts or substitute a different view.

O R D E R

[Circulation]

PRAMOD KUMAR DAS, MEMBER (A):

1. In terms of Rule 17 (3) of Central Administrative Tribunal ( Procedure) Rules, 1987 and the Notification dated 18th February, 1992 issued by Hon’ble Chairman in exercise of power conferred under Section 5 , 12 and 22 of the A.T. Act, 1985 , this RA has been placed for consideration on circulation by the Registry.

2. Admittedly, under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, a judgm ent may be open to review, 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 the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The above view is fortified by the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta , (2008) 8 SCC 612, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court had an occasion to consider what can be said to be "mistake or error apparent on the face of record". In para 22 to 35 it is observed and held as under:

"22. The term "mistake or error apparent" by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22 (3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision.”

3. In the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India , (2000) 6 SC 224, it has been observed and held by the Hon’ble Apex Court that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power.

4. In State of Haryana Vs. M.P. Mohla , (2007) 1 SCC 457, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:

"27. A review petition filed by the appellants herein was not maintainable. There was no error apparent on the face of the record. The effect of a judgment may have to be considered afresh in a separate proceeding having regard to the subsequent cause of action which might have arisen but the same by itself may not be a ground for filing an application for review."

5. In the case of Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.), (2006) 4 SCC 78, while considering the scope and ambit of Section 114 CPC read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the Hon’ble Apex Court observed and as under:

"14. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury , (1995) 1 SCC 170 it was held that:

"8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47 Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court, in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sha