Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2061 (RAJ)

Girdhar Singh v. State of Raj.

2006-06-16

R.N.ARVIND

body2006
Honble ARVIND, M.—These two review petitions have been filed under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the judgment dated 15.12.2005 passed by this Bench in Reference/LR/691/97/ Alwar and Reference/LR/692/97/Alwar. 2. Both the references were decided by one order and since the subject matter of the review is same with both the petitions; hence both the review petitions are being decided by one order. Copies of this order may be placed in each file. 3. By the review petitions a special emphasise has been made on the fact that the decision of the Cabinet dated 14.9.49 has not been properly interpreted and it has been argued that the land connected with Prem Kunj is part of Prem Kunj and it cannot be treated as a separate government land. Learned counsel for the petitioners also argued that the connected land was accepted as a private property. He also argued that the references were presented after a long lapse of six years and as such this is an error apparent on the face of the record and these cases need to be reviewed because the order passed by this Bench is erroneous and there is error apparent on the face of the record and position of facts and law has not been properly interpreted. 4. These cases were heard and the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioners supported the review petition but the learned Government Advocate argued that the order passed by this Bench has already discussed all the issues raised in the revision petition and the scope of review petition is very very limited and there are no grounds to justify the acceptance of the review petition. 5. Both the parties were heard on the merits and legal position of the review petition and this review petitions can be decided at this stage. 6. While advancing the arguments on the review petitions, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced almost same ground, which he had already raised during the course of hearing of references. It would be relevant to first of all discuss the issue raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners. 6. While advancing the arguments on the review petitions, learned counsel for the petitioner advanced almost same ground, which he had already raised during the course of hearing of references. It would be relevant to first of all discuss the issue raised by the learned counsel on behalf of the petitioners. From the bare perusal of the petitions, it is clear that there is no error which is apparent on the face of the record and there is neither any new discovery of issues which were not discussed earlier nor there is any clerical error and thee is no error which without any effort is visible on the face of the record. The issues raised in the review petition require a long and logical process of evaluation of the arguments and revised interpretation of legal arguments. Such a process of long and logical arguments either on merit or law cannot be covered within the scope of review petition. Review petition is limited to the scope as provided under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and there is nothing in the review petition which could attract our attention to any ground which can justify the acceptance of these review petitions. 7. 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, revision, reference etc. 8. The series of the decisions have crystallized the position that only on cases of palpable and manifest errors on the face of the record review is permitted. The scope of review has got its limited compass in comparison to the scope available at the time of hearing of appeal, revision, reference etc. 8. The series of the decisions have crystallized the position that only on cases of 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. 9. An error can be said to be apparent on the face of the record only when it may be noticed without going deep in to the record and trying to find circumstances in which it was given. The court deciding the review petition is also not required to go into the correctness or otherwise of the decisions of the lower Court to examine the question of exercise of jurisdiction by those Courts. The scope of review cannot be extended to be a tool of re-hearing the matter again. 10. In view of the principle laid down by Honble Apex Court the power of review should be exercised in the rarest of the rare cases and it should not be used indiscriminately correct any wrong interpretation or analysis when there is no error apparent on the face of the record or any material irregularity. Any subsequent happening is also not a cause to enhance the scope of review. 11. 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 Kumar Rath vs. Orissa State, AIR 2000 SC 85 , the Honble Apex Court has 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 parent 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 Nilkanthan Dash vs. Dhruba 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. 12. In this reference it would be also very relevant to refer to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court as reported in 2005(1) RRT page 545 which clarifies the position as under:– "Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Order 47 Rule 1—Review—Point that has been held and decided—View taken in the judgment maybe erroneous but cannot be a ground for review." 13. In this reference it would be also very relevant to refer to the decision of the Honble Supreme Court as reported in 2005(1) RRT page 545 which clarifies the position as under:– "Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—Order 47 Rule 1—Review—Point that has been held and decided—View taken in the judgment maybe erroneous but cannot be a ground for review." 13. As already stated hereinabove, the scope of review is very limited and keeping in view the aforestated legal position in mind and respectfully obeying the principles laid down by Honble Supreme Court of India and also after going through the judgment of Single Bench dated 15.12.2005, I do not find that there is any error apparent on the face of the record or in the order passed dated 15.12.2005, which requires interference in these review petitions. Consequently, the review petitions fail and are hereby dismissed. Pronounced.