Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2024 (5) TMI 1024 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURTReview petition - seeking review / recall of order [2023 (11) TMI 652 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] whereby the appeal has been dismissed in absence of any substantial questions of law - 'mistake or error apparent’ - 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] as 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. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate Court. In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for successfully seeking review as recognized by Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are made out in the present case. The Apex Court in the case of S. Bhagirathi Amaal Vs. Palani Roman [2007 (12) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT] has held that in order to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous. Apex Court in case of State of West Bengal Vs. Kamal Sengupta [2008 (6) TMI 578 - SUPREME COURT] has held that "a party cannot be permitted to argue de novo in the garb of review." On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments passed in the case of S. Bhagirathi Amaal and State of West Bengal [2007 (12) TMI 456 - SUPREME COURT], there is no error apparent on the face of record warranting interference in the order impugned.
|