ORDER

Date : 23-07-2021 Heard Mr. T. Pertin, learned counsel for the petitioner.

By filing this petition under Section 114 and Order XLVII [47] of the Code of Civil Procedure, the petitioner prays for review of the Judgment dated

19.02.2021 passed in CRP-03/2019.

By the impugned judgment, an application filed under Section 50 of the Assam Frontier (Administration of Justice) Regulation, 1945 was dismissed. Now, the primary contention of the petitioner is that the order passed in CRP- 03/2019 needs to be recalled, as it was passed on the basis of erroneous interpretation of facts and law.

In order to buttress his point, Mr. Pertin has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court that was rendered in Lily Thomas and Others v. Union of India and Others, reported in (2000) 6 SCC 224. Paragraph 56 of the judgment is relevant for the present matter, which reads as follows:

“56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment.”

I have given my anxious consideration to the submission made by Mr.

Pertin.

Now, the question arises whether the powers of review provided by Order

47 Rule 1 of the CPC can be applied in the present case. Order 47, Rule 1 reads as under –

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 of 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 to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree on order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for there view.

[Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]

Here at this stage, it would be fruitful delve into the relevant legal position rendered by the Hon,ble Supreme Court in Inderchand Jain (D) Th.Lrs. vs Motilal (D) Th.Lrs [ (2009)14 SCC 663 ). The jurisdiction of a Court and/or the extent thereof to review its own decision is the question involved in Inderchand Jain (D) Th.Lrs. vs Motilal (D) Th.Lrs (supra).

The Hon,ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles of review in this way –

(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly