Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 25 (MP)

Vinod Kumar Rawat v. Sheela Sahu

2021-01-12

VISHAL MISHRA

body2021
JUDGMENT : Vishal Mishra, J. 1. In the wake of unprecedented and uncertain situation due to outbreak of the Novel Corona virus (COVID-19) and considering the advisories issued by the Government of India, this petition has been heard and decided through video conferencing to maintain social distancing. The parties are being represented by the respective counsel through video conferencing, following the norms of social distancing/physical distancing in letter and spirit. 2. With the consent of the parties, the matter is finally heard through Video Conferencing. 3. The present review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC has been preferred challenging the order dated 04.02.2020 passed by this Court in C.R. No. 841/2018, whereby the civil revision filed by the respondents was allowed. It is alleged that alongwith the civil suit an application under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC is being filed by the plaintiff/petitioners wherein a detailed explanation with respect to delay in filing the civil suit is being given. If such an application is allowed by the learned trial Court then the civil suit will be in limitation. He has also preferred an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act to explain the same before the learned trial Court. But the factum of filing and pendency of the application under Order 6 Rule 17 of C.P.C. was not brought to the notice of this Court at the time of consideration of civil revision, in such circumstances, allowing the civil revision filed by the respondents and holding the civil suit of the plaintiffs is not maintainable and time barred. The review petition has been preferred. He submits that the question of limitation is a mixed question of law and facts, therefore, the same can only be proved by cogent evidence. It is argued that the aforesaid error is apparent on the face of the record for which could be taken into consideration at a liberal view and scope of review jurisdiction. He has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for restoring the civil revision to be heard again on merits. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and has argued that the scope of review is very limited. He has prayed for setting aside the impugned order and for restoring the civil revision to be heard again on merits. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the prayer made by the petitioners and has argued that the scope of review is very limited. This Court while considering the civil revision has passed a detailed order dated 04.02.2020 considering all the arguments which have been addressed by the parties before this Court. The order in civil revision has been passed on 04.02.2020 and in the present review petition has been preferred in the month 11.12.2020 i.e. again the same is hopelessly barred by time. It is submitted that the order was passed on 04.02.2020, therefore, the review could have been filed upto 03.03.2020 but no efforts were made by the petitioners to file the same. Even otherwise scope of review is limited to correcting the typical error or any other error which is apparent on the face of the record but the Court can not go into merits of the case even the judgment or the order passed by the Court is found to be erroneous. He has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650 and Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others in Civil Appeal No. 10621 of 2013, ( 2014 (5) SCC 75 ). Learned counsel for the respondents has prayed for dismissal of the civil revision. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. With respect to the law regarding scope of interference in review petition is concerned, the law is settled to the effect that there is a very limited scope and jurisdiction to entertain the review petition and can only be entertained when there is any error which is apparent on the face of the record or there is any to correct the typical error mistake which has occurred. The Court cannot go into the merits of the case while rehearing the review petition. It is also settled that even if the judgment or the order passed by this Court is wrong or erroneous, the proper remedy is not getting it corrected by filing a review petition. The Court cannot go into the merits of the case while rehearing the review petition. It is also settled that even if the judgment or the order passed by this Court is wrong or erroneous, the proper remedy is not getting it corrected by filing a review petition. He can avail the remedy of filing an appeal against the order passed for which the relief is sought. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case S. Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission; (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held as under:- "12. An error contemplated must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. When does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the Court. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the appellant, in such circumstances, the review will lie." 7. Further in the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. v. Kamal Sengupta and Anr.; (2008) 8 SCC 612 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "22. The term "mistake or error apparent" by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC." 8. Further in the case of Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India and others, AIR 2000 SC 1650 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:- "55. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal strength has to be followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment." 9. Further in the case of Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others in Civil Appeal No. 10620 of 2013, ( 2014 (5) SCC 75 ) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "40. Even an erroneous decision on a question of law attracts the doctrine of res judicata between the parties to it. The correctness or otherwise of a judicial decision has no bearing upon the question whether or not it operates as res judicata. (Vide: Shah Shivraj Gopalji v. Edappakath Ayissa Bi & Ors., AIR 1949 PC 302 ; and Mohanlal Goenka v. Benoy Kishna Mukherjee & Ors., AIR 1953 SC 65 )." 10. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgments as well as the facts that there is limits scope of interference and the fact that the petitioners could not point out any error which is apparent on the face of the record or any typical error which has occurred during the passing of the judgment. No interference can be made by this Court. Making no interference in the review petition, the same is dismissed. 11. As the review petition has already been dismissed, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being I.A. 3681/2020 has rendered and is also disposed of. 12. No interference can be made by this Court. Making no interference in the review petition, the same is dismissed. 11. As the review petition has already been dismissed, the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act being I.A. 3681/2020 has rendered and is also disposed of. 12. E-copy of this order be provided to the petitioners and it is made clear that E-copy of this order shall be treated as certified copy for practical purposes in respect of this order.