2024 (12) TMI 1574 - HC - Central Excise

Scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C - HELD THAT - There are no reason whatsoever to review the order passed by this Court on 22.11.2024. The ground of review provided by the petitioner does not fall within the four corners of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. It is to be noted that review jurisdiction is a limited jurisdiction and is governed by certain principles that have been elaborated by a catena of Supreme Court judgments and have been summarized in the judgment of Calcutta High Court in State of West Bengal vs. Confederation of State Government Employees 2019 (3) TMI 2082 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT wherein it was held that A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise . There is a sharp distinction between an erroneous decision that can be only appealed against and an error apparent on the face of the record that is subject to review. Upon perusal of the review petition and the submissions made the review application is liable to be rejected as it does not come within the ambit of principles as laid down above. Hence the review application is dismissed.

Summary

The Allahabad High Court, in a review application against its order dated 22.11.2024 in Central Excise Appeal No. 14 of 2024, reiterated the limited scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, as governed by Section 151 CPC. Citing the Calcutta High Court's summary of Supreme Court precedents (State of West Bengal v. Confederation of State Government Employees, 2019 SCC Online Cal 9181), the Court emphasized that review is permissible only on: (A) discovery of new and important evidence not previously available despite due diligence; (B) an error apparent on the face of the record; or (C) any other sufficient reason, which must be read narrowly within the first two grounds. The Court clarified that "an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record," and that review cannot serve as "an appeal in disguise" (see Sasi v. Aravindakshan Nair, (2017) 4 SCC 692; Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, (2006) 4 SCC 78; Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715). Finding the petitioner's grounds outside these parameters, the Court dismissed the review application.