Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 1700 (RAJ)

Goru @ Gorilal v. Rajendra Kumar

2001-10-12

H.S.PUNIA, S.C.SINGHAL

body2001
SINGHAL, Member –The applicant-respondent has filed review application under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 (in short `the Act) for reviewing the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Board dated 16.11.95, by which the appeal of non-applicants appellants was accepted. (2). Heard learned counsel of both the parties and perused the record. (3). Section 229 of the Act begins with the words ``subject to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, to which relevant provisions in CPC are applicable. Hence, order 47 of Code of Civil Procedure and the rules contained therein apply with full force to review u/Sec. 229 of the Act. It is clearly established law that in a review, the court cannot sit in appeal over a decision sought to be reviewed. The court can interfere if requirement of order 47 rule 1 CPC read with Section 229 of the Act are fulfilled. An error can be said to be apparent on face of the record within meaning of rule 1 only when it can be noticed without delving in the record and trying to find circumstances in which it was given. Decision of admissibility of document cannot be said to be mistake of law apparent on face of record. The scope of review petition in order 47 rule 1 CPC is limited to errors apparent on face of record. An error apparent on face of record may have occurred on account of an inadvertency or if should be an evident error which does not require any extraneous matter to show its correctness. No review lies if the decision of the court is erroneous and if the court was aware of what it was doing. The error of law must be such that must not require a research and must not be one relating to which it may be possible to hold more than one opinion. Mistake or error of law must be so manifest or patent that it admits of no doubts and disputes. The error should be so glaring that the court would not like to retain it on the record. (4). The learned counsel for the applicant has argued before us almost the same argument which was advanced by him before the Division Bench of this Board while passing the impugned order dated 16.11.95. The error should be so glaring that the court would not like to retain it on the record. (4). The learned counsel for the applicant has argued before us almost the same argument which was advanced by him before the Division Bench of this Board while passing the impugned order dated 16.11.95. The counsel for the applicant has argued that the D.B. of this Board has erred in arriving at the conclusion that the compromise filed before the trial court on 30.3.92 was not a compromise under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. He has also argued that the impugned judgment of the Board is erroneous and contrary to law as it did not contain the valid reasons for not accepting it as valid compromise. (5). On the other hard, the learned counsel for the non- applicants has opposed the above argument and has urged that the said compromise was not produced before the trial court by all the parties to the proceedings. He has also argued that it is not within the scope of review as to whether the judgment of the D.B. is erroneous or contrary to law. (6). We have gone through the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Board dated 16.11.95. If would be clear that the Honble D.B. has come to the conclusion after going through the record that the application/compromise dated 30.3.92 filed before the trial court does not bear the signatures of non- applicants No. 1-3 not the signatures of their counsel. The Division Bench after going through the said compromise, came to the conclusion that it is not a valid compromise within order 23 rule 3 CPC. (7). 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. The review petition can only be entertain on the ground of error apparent on the face of record and not an any other ground. So far as that aspect is concerned, it is to be kept in view that an error apparent on the face of the record must be such which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. So far as that aspect is concerned, it is to be kept in view that an error apparent on the face of the record must be such which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Finding given by the Division Bench cannot be reviewed even though it was erroneous. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record. In this connection, reference may be made to Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Chaudhary (1). (8). In the light of this settled legal position, we find no force in the review petition filed by the applicant, which is hereby dismissed. (9). No order as to costs. Pronounced in open court.