Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1083 (MP)

Santosh Kumar Sharma v. Union of India

2014-08-28

S.K.GANGELE, S.K.PALO

body2014
JUDGMENT 1. Heard. 2. This review petition has been filed for review of the order dated 24.11.2011 passed in W.P. No. 3513 of 2009 (S). 3. It is contended by the counsel for the petitioners that there was no limit fixed by the railways for the purpose of grant of compassionate appointment after acquisition of the land and the policy which has been relied by the court is not a policy. 4. We have perused the order passed by this court. In our opinion, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. 5. Learned counsel raised the ground touching the merits of the case. 6. Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320 , as held as under in regard to the facts that in which circumstances the review petition is not maintainable : "When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived." 7. In accordance with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the merits of the case can not be considered in review petition. 8. Hence, we do not find any merit in this review petition. It is hereby dismissed. 9. No order as to costs.