Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 2067 (RAJ)

Ramulal @ Ramnath v. Jawahar

2006-06-21

R.N.ARVIND

body2006
Honble ARVIND, M.—This review petition has been filed under Section 86 of the Rajasthan Land Revenue Act, 1956 against the judgment dated 25.6.2005 passed by this Bench in Revision/LR/100/2002/Alwar. 2. The learned counsel of the applicant while arguing on the merits of the case has raised almost same grounds in the petition which had been raised and had been decided by the Single Bench of this Court while deciding the revision. He has laid special emphasis in this review petition on the fact that the mutation was recorded on the basis of two orders which included the order of learned Asstt. Collector dated 19.5.67. He also averred that the non-petitioners and also the petitioners were not parties to that suit reportedly decided earlier by the learned Asstt. Collector dated 19.5.67. He also averred that the judgment of learned Asstt. Collector was not on the record of the file of the Board of Revenue and any reference to that judgment is an error apparent on the face of the record and the judgment of learned Asstt. Collector was discussed in the pleadings and the order of learned Additional Divisional Commissioner has also discussed the facts mentioned in the judgment. These facts were not contradicted. There is no discovery of facts which could be termed as an error apparent on the face of the record. He has raised objections on the evaluation of merit of the case and the interpretation of law. This can be covered only under the scope of revision and cannot be covered under review. 3. The learned counsel for the applicants now wants me to rehear the revision on the same grounds, which were raised before this Court while deciding the revision. In the 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 mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. 4. 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 mistake 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 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. 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 to the record and trying to find circumstances in which it was given. 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 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. 7. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. Dhurba 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 appellant jurisdiction in disguise. 9. 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 may be erroneous but cannot be a ground for review." 10. 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 this Single Bench dated 25.6.2005, I do not find that there is any error apparent on the face of the record or in the order passed dated 25.6.2005, which requires interference in this review petition. Consequently, the review petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Pronounced.