9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1687X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... would have passed a short order in the matter dismissing the special leave petition which would have paved the path for extinction for the litigation, for it is devoid of any merit warranting any interference but, an eloquent one, the circumstances impel us to state something more. 3. A Regular Second Appeal was preferred before the High Court Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree passed in Appeal Suit No. 149 of 2008, which had given the stamp of approval to the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff, Alappuzha in O.S. No. 518 of 2003. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal on 9th March, 2012. The Appellant therein filed a review petition under Orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r. (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 when, being Respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. Explanation.-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. 6. The grounds enumerated therein are specific. The principles for interference in exercise of review jurisdiction are well settled. The C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". 9. The aforesaid authorities clearly spell out the nature, scope and ambit of power to be exercised. The error has to be self-evident ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty and obligation of a litigant to file a review and not to keep it defective as if a defective petition can be allowed to remain on life support, as per his desire. It is the obligation of the counsel filing an application for review to cure or remove the defects at the earliest. The prescription of limitation for filing an application for review has its own sanctity. The Registry of the High Courts has a duty to place the matter before the Judge/Bench with defects so that there can be pre-emptory orders for removal of defects. An adroit method cannot be adopted to file an application for review and wait till its rejection and, thereafter, challenge the orders in the special leave petition and take specious and mercurial plea asserting ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
