Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2039 (RAJ)

Ramswaroopdas v. L. Rs. of Malaram

2006-06-06

A.K.PUROHIT

body2006
Honble PUROHIT, M.—This review petition has been flied under Section 229 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 and Sections 151 and 152 CPC against the judgment dated 19.10.2005 passed by this Bench in Revision/TA/ 1104412M, by which the revision petition was dismissed with the observation that the issue regarding Baldev Das to be only successor of Sampat Ram will be decided in the suit after framing the issue on this point and after receiving the evidence on this issue. 2. The learned counsel for the applicant while arguing on the merits of the case has raised almost same grounds in the petition which have been raised and have been decided by the Single Bench of this Court while deciding the revision. 3. The learned counsel for the applicant now wants me to rehear the appeal on the same grounds, which were raised before this court while deciding the revision. In this review petition it is not permissible because the scope of review is very limited. Review is permitted only under the circumstances of discovery of new and important matter which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge or could not have been produced at the time when the order was passed or on account of some mistakes or error apparent on the face of the record. 4. Section 86(3) of the Act expressly provides that the application for review shall lie on the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and the provisions of the said order shall be subject to provisions contained in sub-section (1) and (2) of Section 86 of the Act. It is well settled principle that the mistakes or errors on the face of the record must be in the nature, which does not require any extraneous matter to show its incorrectness. It should be an error so manifest and clear that no court would permit such an error to remain on the record while hearing the review the court cannot sit over the judgment and hear the case as being heard in the appeal or revision the scope of review has got its limited compass in comparison to the scope available at the time of hearing of appeal or revision. 5. The series of the decisions have crystallized the position that palpable and manifest errors on the face of the record review is permitted. 5. The series of the decisions have crystallized the position that palpable and manifest errors on the face of the record review is permitted. Order 47 Rule 1 CPC provides that the scope of review is very limited and the review of the judgment can be allowed on three grounds; (i) discovery of new and important matters of evidence, i.e. fresh facts which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant and could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order was made, (ii) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, (iii) for any other sufficient reasons, which are analogous to the reasons specified above. 6. An error can be said to be apparent on the face of the record only when it may be noticed without going deep in record and trying to find circumstances in which it was given. The court deciding the review petition is also not required to go into correctness or otherwise of the decisions of the lower court to examine the question of exercise of jurisdiction by, those courts, therefore, the scope of present application for reviewing the order pronounced in the appellate Court cannot be wider than that of appeal. 7. The power of review should be exercised in the rarest of the rare cases and it should not be used indiscriminately to avoid justice and when there is no error apparent on the face of the record and the material irregularity the review deserves to be rejected. Subsequent happening is also not a ground for review nor subsequent change of law or decision of the same of the superior court uphold such ground, a subsequent admission of the party in the matter of the litigation cannot be ground for review. 8. The Honble Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, AIR 1995 SC 455 has clearly held that the error apparent on the face of the record should be such which should strike immediately looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points. While considering review, the courts are not supposed to re-appreciate the entire evidence and reverse the findings. While considering review, the courts are not supposed to re-appreciate the entire evidence and reverse the findings. In Ajit Kuinar Rath vs. Orissa State, AIR 2000 SC 85 , the apex Court held that the power is not absolute and is subject to restrictions indicated in Order 47 CPC. A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, i.e., the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed in establishing it. The expression "any other sufficient reason" used in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule. Any other attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the court under the Act to review its judgment. Similarly, in Neel Kanthan Das vs. Dhruda Charan Sahu, AIR 1999 Orissa 106, the court has held that when there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record and the court is convinced, it would be appropriate for the court to correct the same, but there is a distinction which may not always be capable of exposition between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by error apparent. The mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is one, which is self evident and does not require a process of reasoning and it is distinct from erroneous decision. Rehearing the matter of detecting an error in the earlier decision and then correcting the same do not fall within the ambit of review jurisdiction. Review jurisdiction cannot be used as appellate jurisdiction in, disguise. 9. As already stated hereinabove, the scope of review is very limited and keeping in view the aforestated legal position in mind and also after going through the judgment of Single Bench dated 19.10.2005, I do not find that there is any error apparent on the face of judgment dated 19.10.2005, which requires interference in this review petition. Consequently, the review petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Pronounced in open court.