Home Case Index All Cases Indian Laws Indian Laws + SC Indian Laws - 2022 (8) TMI SC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 1337 - SC - Indian LawsMaintainability of second review petition - first set of review petitions were not satisfied - core argument advanced on behalf of the appellant that the High Court ought not to have entertained successive review petitions filed by the respondents when they could not demonstrate emergence of any new facts or point out any error apparent on the face of the record, for allowing the review applications, must be put to test by examining the relevant provisions of law that governs review jurisdiction. HELD THAT:- A review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others [1980 (7) TMI 269 - SUPREME COURT], this Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. In PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS VERSUS SUMITRI DEVI AND OTHERS [1997 (10) TMI 369 - SUPREME COURT] , stating that an error that is not self- evident and the one thathas to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review, this Court held that With a view to do complete justice between the parties, it appears appropriate to us to direct that the Executing Court shall, while deciding the Executing Application on merits also consider this aspect and return a finding as to when the cause of action accrued to the decree holder and the consider the question as to which Article of the Limitation Act applies to the facts of the case. It has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court’s jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. Even otherwise, recourse to successive review petitions against the same order is impermissible more so, when the respondents have miserably failed to draw the attention of this Court to any circumstances that would entitle them to invoke review jurisdiction within the ambit of the Rules. Under the rules, the respondents were not required to produce “genuine” documents but new documents/evidence that was not within their knowledge and could not have been so even after exercise of due diligence, which could have turned the tables in their favour. Nor has any error apparent on the face of the record been brought out by them. The second set of review petitions were nothing short of an abuse of the process of the court and ought to have been rejected by the High Court as not maintainable, without having gone into the merits of the matter - Appeal allowed.
|