TMI Blog2019 (6) TMI 1301X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le in light of provisions as contained u/s 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thus this court does not find any reason to review the order. - R. P. No. 771/2019 - - - Dated:- 19-6-2019 - S. C. Sharma And Virender Singh JJ. For the Applicant : Mr. PM Choudhary, learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. Anand Prabhawalkar, Advocate For the Respondent : Ms. Veena Mandlik, learned counsel ORDER The applicant before this Court has filed this present Review Petition for reviewing the order dated 10/4/2019 (Mansukhlal Pitalia Vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax another). The applicant was aggrieved by order dated 4/12/2018 passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Ujjain u/S. 220(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The applicant came up with a case that levy of interest was on the higher side and it was causing great hardship to him and, therefore, the application for waiver of interest be allowed. The Principal Chief Commissioner has rejected the application. This Court after hearing the learned counsel for the parties at lengt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rty has adequate and efficacious remedy and the court should exercise the power to review its order with the greatest circumspection. This Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. held as follows: There is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by error apparent . A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out. 20. When the aforesaid principles are applied to the background facts of the present case, the position is clear that the High Court had clearly fallen in error in accepting the prayer for review. First, the crucial question which according to the High Court was necessary to be adjudicated was the question whether Ti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ecord for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)( f ) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision. 35. The principles which can be culled out from the abovenoted judgments are: ( i ) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)( f ) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. ( ii ) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise. ( iii ) The expression any other sufficient reason appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds. ( iv ) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Code; Rule 1 whereof reads as under: 17 . The power of a civil court to review its judgment/decision is traceable in Section 114 CPC. The grounds on which review can be sought are enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which reads as under: 1. Application for review of judgment .-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- ( a ) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, ( b ) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or ( c ) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some 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 of the court which passed the decree or made the order. 22. Whereas the appella ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the decree. The law acknowledges that during pendency of the appeal it is possible for the decree-holder to get the decree executed. The execution of the decree during pendency of the appeal would, thus, be subject to the restitution of the property in the event the appeal is allowed and the decree is set aside. The court only at the time of passing a judgment and decree reversing that of the appellate court should take into consideration the subsequent events, but, by no stretch of imagination, can refuse to do so despite arriving at the findings that the plaintiff would not be entitled to grant of a decree. 31. Contention of Mr Venugopal that the defendant having accepted novation of contract but only the quantum of the amount being different, the court could have asked the respondent-plaintiff to deposit a further sum of ₹ 24,000 cannot be accepted for more than one reason. Apart from the fact that such a contention had never been raised before the appellate court, keeping in view the finding of fact arrived at that there had in fact been no novation of contract, such a course of action was not open. In any view of the matter, the same would a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aterials placed before the court. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the applicant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled to rehearing of the same issue but the issue can be decided just by a perusal of the records and if it is manifest can be set right by reviewing the order. With this background, let us analyse the impugned judgment of the High Court and find out whether it satisfies any of the tests formulated above. 26. As held earlier, if the judgment/order is vitiated by an apparent error or it is a palpable wrong and if the error is self-evident, review is permissible and in this case the High Court has rightly applied the said principles as provided under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In view of the same, we are unable to accept the arguments of learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, on the other hand, we are in entire agreement with the view expressed by the High Court. In light of the aforesaid judgments, this court does not find any reason to review the order dated 10/4/2019 pa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
