Research › Search › Judgment

Gauhati High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 78 (GAU)

Krishna Gopal Banik v. Hindustan Lever Ltd.

2006-01-20

B.SUDERSHAN REDDY

body2006
JUDGMENT B. Sudershan Reddy, C.J. 1. The plaintiff in Title Suit No. 42 of 2001 on the file of the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Karimganj is the petitioner in this review petition. He filed the suit for recovery of compensation of an amount of Rs. 1,00,60,617 (rupees one crore sixty lakh six hundred seventeen only) along with pendente lite with future interest till realisation of the amount. The respondent-defendant having entered their appearance filed an application under order 7, Rule 11 and Sections 16 and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure for rejection of the plaint. The trial Court vide order dated 24.9.2001 passed in Title Suit No. 42/2001 held that the trial Court where the suit has been instituted has got territorial jurisdiction to try the suit. Being aggrieved by the said order dated 24.9.2001 the defendant in the said suit filed revision petition being Civil Revision No. 419 of 2002 in this Court. 2. The civil revision was heard on its own merits, which came up for consideration before the then Hon'ble the Chief Justice. 3. This Court having considered the contents of the plaint, as presented, found that the cause of action had arisen for claiming the amount in regard to property situated at Ramnagar, Silchar within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court established at Silchar and, thus, came to a conclusion that the trial court has committed error in holding that the Court at Karimganj has jurisdiction to try the suit. This Court accordingly interfered with the order dated 24.9.2001 and the Civil Revision was allowed by setting aside the order passed by the trial Court. However, liberty was granted to the plaintiff petitioner to take back the plaint and present it in a proper court for its enquiry and trial in accordance with law. 4. Learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner submitted that even prior to filing of the revision petition by the defendant, the trial court passed order on 8.11.2002 to proceed against the defendant ex-parte and directed the matter to be posted on 20.12.2002 for further hearing on which date the defendant appeared and sought time for filing written statement and that these facts could not be placed before this Court at the time when the civil revision was heard and disposed of. According to the learned senior counsel, this factum of the defendant respondent appearing in the court and seeking time to file written statement itself shows that they have submitted to the jurisdiction of the Court and, therefore, they cannot be permitted to raise any objection whatsoever as regards the territorial jurisdiction of the trial Court. The learned senior counsel proceeded to submit that this is a fit case for exercising review jurisdiction of this Court. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the review petitioner. However, I am unable to accept the submission. 6. This Court in civil revision petition was merely concerned with the legality and correctness of the trial court's order dated 24.9.2002 whereunder the trial court was of the view that the court has jurisdiction to try the suit. The question that arose for consideration was whether the trial court has territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit. This Court after consideration of rival submissions found the impugned order dated 24.9.2002 to be not an appropriate order and accordingly held that on plain reading of the plaint, the cause of action for claiming the amount in respect of the property situated at Ramnagar, Silchar accrued within the territorial jurisdiction of the Court at Silchar. This Court has passed the said order after hearing the parties on the question of legality and validity of the impugned order dated 24.9.2002. This Court for the reasons recorded therein had taken a clear and definite view that the Court at Silchar alone had jurisdiction to try the suit. That finding and the view taken by the Court may be correct or not, but the question remains as to whether it is open for this Court to review the order dated 5.3.2004 in exercising review jurisdiction on the ground that certain subsequent events that transpired after 24.9.2002 were not brought to the notice of this Court. It appears that in the interregnum between the date of the trial Court's order dated 24.9.2002 and filing of the revision petition by the defendant challenging the same, the proceedings were going on in, the trial Court. The defendant may have filed the application to set aside the ex-parte order passed against it with further request to the Court to grant time to file written statement in the suit. The defendant may have filed the application to set aside the ex-parte order passed against it with further request to the Court to grant time to file written statement in the suit. Such a request for and on behalf of the defendant in no manner affects or takes away its right to challenge the legality and correctness of the order dated 24.9.2002 passed by the trial Court holding that it had a territorial jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The so-called subsequent events have no bearing whatsoever upon the impugned order dated 24.9.2002 passed by the trial Court for that the order has either to stand or fall on its own. The so-called subsequent events now pressed into service by the petitioner, in my considered opinion, is not a ground for review of the order dated 5.3.2004 passed by this Court allowing the civil revision petition filed by the defendant. 7. Be that as it may, the petitioner cannot blame others for not placing the so-called subsequent event before the Court and take advantage of its own omission and file the present review petition. It is required to notice that the trial Court's order dated 24.9.2002 was set aside by this Court only on 5.3.2004, that is to say, after a period of more than one and half months. The petitioner obviously slept over the matter when the civil revision filed by the plaintiff was pending in this Court. 8. It is fairly well settled and needs no restatement that, review jurisdiction of this Court cannot be equated to that of appellate jurisdiction. The clear-cut distinction between the appellate jurisdiction and review jurisdiction, cannot be ignored. It is not necessary to dilate on such elementary principles. Suffice it to hold that the impugned order under review does not suffer from any errors apparent on the face of the record requiring any correction. Fishing and roving enquiry and a deep probe, by re-appreciating the materials available on record in order to find out as to whether the Court committed any error in passing the order is not in the realm of review jurisdiction. Fishing and roving enquiry and a deep probe, by re-appreciating the materials available on record in order to find out as to whether the Court committed any error in passing the order is not in the realm of review jurisdiction. The submission made by the learned senior counsel, if entertained, may virtually amount to not only re-hearing of the civil revision petition but also to take certahi facts into consideration which were even available being within the knowledge of the plaintiff petitioner and which facts were not placed before the Court. The petitioner cannot ask for a premium to be paid for the lapse. 9. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Board of Control for Cricket, India and Anr. v. Netaji Cricket Club and Anr. (2005) 1 SLT 313 in support of his submission that the review petition is maintainable upon discovery of new and important piece of evidence. The Apex Court in that case held, that an application for review is maintainable not only upon discovery of new and important piece of evidence or when there exists error apparent on face of record, but also if same necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. The word "sufficient reason" under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC is wide enough to include misconception of fact or law by a court or even advocate. I fail to appreciate as to how the ratio is applicable in the present case when no real misconception of facts, or any important facts as such discovered after disposal of the civil revision petition. The facts that the defendant-respondent appeared before the Court and requested the Court to grant some time to file written statement were available even on 24.9.2002 when the civil revision petition was heard and disposed. There is no misconception of fact nor in law on the part of the court or on the part of the advocate as such and the civil revision petition was disposed of on the basis of the available materials. This Court was merely concerned as to the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order dated 24.9.2002 and upon consideration found the order of the trial court as erroneous and accordingly allowed the revision in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. This Court was merely concerned as to the correctness or otherwise of the impugned order dated 24.9.2002 and upon consideration found the order of the trial court as erroneous and accordingly allowed the revision in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction. The order under revision does not suffer from any errors, much less, any errors apparent on the face of the record requiring review of the same. It is not a case where Court has been mislead by a party or court itself committed a mistake apparent on the face of the record. Re-hearing of every matter under the guise of review power is not a matter of course. The matter that attained finality cannot be re-opened unless a clear case is made out. 10. The learned, senior counsel cited yet another decision of the Apex Court in Rajender Singh v. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands and Ors. (2005) 7 SLT 561, which has no bearing whatsoever on, the question that falls for consideration. The Apex Court in the said case considering the scope of the High Court's judicial, review jurisdiction while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India held that the power of review of its own order by the High Court inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice. It is difficult to discern as to why the said judgment is cited by the learned Senior Counsel, which absolutely has no relevance to the question that falls for consideration in the present case. 11. For all the aforesaid reasons, I find no merit in the review petition. The petition is accordingly dismissed. 12. This order shall not in any manner, affect the right of the petitioner plaintiff to present its plaint in an appropriate court of jurisdiction and for its disposal on merits in accordance with law being uninfluenced by this order as well as the, order made in the Civil Revision No. 409/2002. Petition dismissed