Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Failure to Cite a Judgement - Such failure, especially of a binding precedent, can constitute an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying review of a judgment. Courts have emphasized that omission of relevant case law by counsel may be grounds for review if it results in a miscarriage of justice or constitutes an error of law. For example, in cases like Reckitt Benckiser v. Wyeth (Sources: ["2023 0 Supreme(Del) 2285"], ["2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 16947"]), failure to cite binding precedents was considered an error apparent on the record warranting review.
Error Apparent on the Face of Record - Many judgments highlight that review is permissible when there is a clear error on the face of the record, such as ignoring relevant material facts or legal precedents. For instance, non-consideration of material evidence like email attachments (Source: ["2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 466"]) or relevant case law (Sources: ["2023 0 Supreme(Del) 2285"], ["2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 16947"]) justifies review.
Grounds for Review - Common grounds include errors of law, failure to consider relevant facts or precedents, or procedural lapses like delay or non-compliance with court fee requirements (Sources: ["2025 0 Supreme(All) 2175"], ["2023 0 Supreme(UK) 167"]). Notably, mere reversal of a decision by a higher court is usually not sufficient for review unless it reveals a legal error or omission.
Limitations and Procedural Aspects - Courts have clarified that review cannot be used as a rehearing or to reargue merits but must be based on specific errors or omissions that are evident on the record (Sources: ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 1557"], ["
Kewal Krishan VS Sham Lal - Current Civil Cases
"]). Additionally, procedural lapses such as failure to pay court fees or failure to cite necessary parties can be valid grounds for dismissing review petitions (Sources: ["2023 0 Supreme(UK) 167"], ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 1898"]).Impact of Counsel’s Omissions - The failure of counsel to cite binding precedents or relevant facts at the time of judgment can be grounds for review, as it may amount to an error of law evident on the record (Sources: ["2023 0 Supreme(Del) 2285"], ["2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 16947"]).
Analysis and Conclusion:The legal framework establishes that failure to cite a judgment or binding precedent, especially when it results in an error of law or a miscarriage of justice, is a valid ground for review. Courts scrutinize such omissions as errors apparent on the face of the record, provided they significantly impact the judgment. Procedural lapses, such as delay or non-compliance with court fee rules, may also justify dismissing review petitions. Overall, the key criterion is whether the omission or error is clear and evident, warranting correction through review proceedings.
References:- ["2023 0 Supreme(Del) 2285"]- ["2023 Supreme(Online)(Del) 16947"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 466"]- ["2025 0 Supreme(All) 2175"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(All) 1557"]- ["
Kewal Krishan VS Sham Lal - Current Civil Cases
"]- ["2023 0 Supreme(UK) 167"]- ["2024 0 Supreme(All) 1898"]
In the intricate world of litigation, parties often scrutinize judgments for any procedural slip-ups. One common grievance is the court's failure to cite a particular judgment or legal authority. But does this omission alone warrant a of the decision? The question, Failure to Cite a Judgement is Ground for , arises frequently in . Generally, under Indian law, simply not citing a judgment does not qualify as a valid ground for . This post delves into the legal principles, key judgments, exceptions, and practical advice to help you navigate this nuanced area.
Failure to cite a judgment or legal authority, by itself, is not a valid ground for of a judgment or order under Indian law. jurisdiction is strictly limited to specific grounds outlined in and : , mistake or , or other sufficient reasons 2012 0 Supreme(AP) 12
2010 0 Supreme(Ker) 55.
Courts have repeatedly emphasized that mere omission to reference a relevant judgment does not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record 2024 0 Supreme(All) 772 2008 0 Supreme(Ori) 1187
. As held in key precedents, such failures do not justify invalidating a judgment without more substantive issues 2010 0 Supreme(AP) 296 2008 0 Supreme(Ori) 1187.
The scope of is narrow and well-defined in Indian jurisprudence. is not an ; it's meant to correct grave errors visible on the record without needing elaborate arguments 2022 0 Supreme(J&K) 80 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 2285.
Under CPC, is permissible only for:- Discovery of new and important evidence not previously available despite due diligence.- Any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.- Any other sufficient reason analogous to the above 2012 0 Supreme(AP) 12 2010 0 Supreme(Ker) 55.
Omission to cite a judgment typically falls short of these criteria unless it leads to or a clear legal error evident without deep scrutiny
2008 0 Supreme(Ori) 1187. For instance, the court in 2008 0 Supreme(Ori) 1187 explicitly stated that omission to cite an authority of law is not a ground for .
Similarly, in
, it was held: failure to cite certain decision at the time of hearing does not appear to be valid and sufficient ground for of the order.
have maintained remarkable consistency on this issue. In 1997 4 Supreme 643, omission to cite a was deemed insufficient for unless it results in an evident legal error on the record.
This principle echoes in other rulings. For example, in 2013 0 Supreme(Mad) 1921, the court noted: Moreover, omission to cite an authority of law is not a ground to the order, which is the subject matter in issue. jurisdiction does not permit or re-hearing points of law afresh.
In 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 2222, it was clarified: A of a judgement is not permissible if the only ground for is that the point is not dealt in correct perspective. The power of cannot be treated as an and can be exercised only for correction of a , which is apparent on the face of the record.
Even in labor and administrative contexts, such as 2012 0 Supreme(Ori) 459, courts refuse when grounds like uncited points were already addressed or do not meet the threshold. The rationale? corrects judicial fallibility only for glaring omissions, not reasoned oversights 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 2222.
While the rule is firm, exceptions exist where failure to cite a judgment ties into a broader error:- : If the omission causes a or is part of an , may be justified 2012 0 Supreme(AP) 12 2010 0 Supreme(Ker) 55.- Clear and Evident Error: The flaw must be self-evident, not requiring argument. As in 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 421, It is a clear instance of error apparent on the face of the record. It is a valid ground for reviewing and recalling the judgment under .- No Re-Argument: Courts stress that isn't for erroneous decisions needing rehearing, distinguishing it from appeals (e.g., , referenced in 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 421).
However, procedural lapses like uncited authorities rarely qualify alone. In cases involving alternative remedies, failure to pursue appeals first bars 2024 Supreme(SRI)(CA) 831.
When contemplating a petition:- Demonstrate Impact: Show precisely how the omission creates an or , not just oversight.- Avoid Appeals in Disguise: Grounds like wrong appreciation of pleadings belong in appeals, not reviews 2019 0 Supreme(Ker) 421.- Explore Alternatives: If re-arguing merits or procedural fixes, opt for appeal under CPC provisions.- Due Diligence: New evidence or changes in law must be truly undiscoverable earlier 2019 0 Supreme(Pat) 2222.
: Failure to cite at hearing invalid for .
In summary, failure to cite a judgment is generally not a standalone ground for under Indian law unless linked to an apparent error or injustice. Courts protect finality of judgments, reserving for exceptional cases. This underscores the importance of robust initial arguments and timely appeals.
Key Takeaways:- is narrow: Focus on patent errors.- Omission alone? Pursue appeal.- Always consult a legal professional for case-specific advice.
This post provides general information based on precedents and is not legal advice. Laws evolve, so verify with qualified counsel.
#ReviewPetition #IndianLaw #CPC47
the review was not on the ground of alteration of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Court. ... It is true that the fact that the decision on which the impugned judgement is based has been overruled is by itself no ground to condone a long delay. ... So far as the ground for condonation of delay is concerned, only ground taken is that the appellants were suffering from diabetes and hyper tens....
The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. ... An application for review would lie, among others, when an order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failu....
Review application can only be filed on the ground that the Court had committed an error, which is apparent on the face of the record and an error committed by the Counsel by failing to notice a relevant case-law and failing to place the same before the Court cannot be a ground for review of the judgment ... Under the guise of review on this ground, the petitioners cannot claim a reheari....
The failure to obtain the "No Objection Certificate" from the erstwhile counsel has disentitled him to file the Review Petition. Even otherwise, the Review Petition has no merits, It is an attempt to reargue the matter on merits. On these grounds, we dismiss the Review Petition". ... of laches or on the ground of non availing of alternative remedy. ... The review application filed by the....
It is contended that certain material facts, though recorded in the judgement, might not have been considered by the Hon’ble Court while passing the judgement under review and such non-consideration of material facts warrants the review of the judgement in order to maintain the judicial propriety. ... (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the de....
By way of the present application, the Defendant seeks review of the final order dated 04.01.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court on the ground that the counsel for the Defendant failed to specifically cite a binding precedent being the judgment of the Full Bench of our own High Court in Reckitt Benckiser ... All that it says is that the defendant failed to specifically cite a binding precedent in Reckitt Benckiser India Ltd.....
In other words, failure by a party to make use of equally efficacious remedies available to them will become a ground for the Court to use its discretion and refuse to grant such relief.” ... When such party seeks judicial review by way of an application for a Writ as provided in Article 140 of the Constitution he has to establish an excuse for his failure to invoke and pursue the appellate jurisdiction. ... Such excuse sh....
By way of the present application, the Defendant seeks review of the final order dated 04.01.2023 passed by this Hon'ble Court on the ground that the counsel for the Defendant failed to specifically cite a binding precedent being the judgment of the Full Bench of our own Signature Not Verified High Court ... All that it says is that the defendant failed to specifically cite a binding precedent in Reckitt Benckiser India L....
On appeal, Collins argues he was prejudiced by counsel’s failure to cite Bell at sentencing because it resulted in Collins “serving 4½ years more than he would have without counting the robbery conviction.” This issue is governed by Lockhart v. ... We review ineffective assistance of counsel claims de novo. Meza-Lopez v. United States, 929 F.3d 1041, 1044 (8th Cir. 2019). ... Ground One of the five-count motion al....
The learned counsel for the appellant submits, that the aspect of delay has had to be reasonably considered by this Court for seeking review of the judgement when the Appeals have been dismissed for non-supplying of the requisite court fee in the light of the provisions contained under Order 7 Rule 11 ... Almost a similar view was taken by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a judgement as reported in (2021) 7 SCC 456, Sayyed Ayaz Ali Vs. Prakash G. ....
It is a clear instance of error apparent on the face of the record. It is a valid ground for reviewing and recalling the judgment under review."
A review of a judgement is not permissible if the only ground for review is that the point is not dealt in correct perspective. The power of review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and can be exercised only for correction of a patent error law, which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be traced after elaborate argument being noted for establishing it.
Also that under the guise of review, this Court would not re-hear the parties on point of law afresh. Moreover, omission to cite an authority of law is not a ground to review the order, which is the subject matter in issue.
Therefore, since the ground of review has already been dealt with in the judgment, that cannot be a ground for review. Accordingly, this Court held that CIT (Appeals) is justified in not entertaining the appeal fled by the petitioner before him on the ground that the same is not maintainable.
In the said case, when the suit was taken up for hearing by the District Munsif, an adjournment was applied for by the defendant, the adjournment was refused and the suit was dismissed. The learned counsel of the petitioner has relied on a decision of Gangamma (3rd supra). 8. 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 o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
