Contact us   Feedback   Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (8) TMI 1251 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT

2015 (8) TMI 1251 - HIMACHAL PRADESH HIGH COURT - TMI - Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure - review petition - review has primarily been sought on the ground that as per clause 11 of the Grant of Nautor Scheme, 1975, a restriction of only 15 years in respect of alienation was provided, whereas the Court has taken this period to be 20 years - Held that:- The questions now sought to be raised in this petition cannot be gone into because the power of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

review, the parties are not entitled to re-hearing and this Court while exercising power of review cannot sit in appeal over its own order.

Having said so, it can safely be concluded that the petitioners have failed to make out a case within the four corners of Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, we find no merit in this Review Petition and the same is dismissed - Review Petition No. 91 of 2015 and LPA No.109 of 2007 - Dated:- 12-8-2015 - .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

.2015, whereby LPA preferred by the appellants was dismissed. 2. The review has primarily been sought on the ground that as per clause 11 of the Grant of Nautor Scheme, 1975, a restriction of only 15 years in respect of alienation was provided, whereas the Court has taken this period to be 20 years. It is further contended that the Deputy Commissioner had only clarified his own order and this Court has wrongly concluded that he had infact reviewed it. The petitioner has also sought to invoke the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Court, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit. Order 47 of the Code reads thus:- Review Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any person cons .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ome mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

of the case, it would be noticed that it was on the basis of reply filed by the official respondents to the writ petition, wherein they admitted the time restriction for transfer to be 20 years and not 15 years, that such findings regarding embargo on transfer was recorded. Indisputably, it was the official respondents, who alone were the best authorities that could have stated about the time period of the embargo placed on the transfer. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

tor Land to Landless Persons and Other Eligible Persons Scheme of 1975, then the grant would essentially abide and will be governed by the provisions of the Scheme and not by the provisions of Government Grants Act. 8. Regarding the applicability of the ratio of the judgment in Purshotam s case supra, suffice it to say that not only this is not the pleaded case of the petitioner, but this point was not even argued and therefore, there was any occasion for this Court to have considered the submis .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must essentially be an error of inadvertence and definitely something more than a mere error and must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or inquiry only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the applicant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. However, under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled to re-hearing .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. 11. The error contemplated under the rule is that the same should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning. The wrong decision can be subject to appeal to a higher form but a review is not permissible on the ground that court proceeded on wrong proposition of law. It is not permissible for erroneous decision to be re-heard and corrected. There is clear distinction betwe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition of old and overruled arguments cannot create a ground for review. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order, which has the normal feature of finality. From the above observation, certain broad principles can be deduced regarding the maintainability/non-maintainability of the review petition:- (A) When the review will be maintainable:- (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

t 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 re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (v) 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 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version