TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1031X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epends upon the materials 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, the review will lie. Admittedly, in the present case, it is not the case of the review petitioners that there is error apparent on the face of the record to review the order dated 21st January, 2020 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, but the reason for filing the review petition is only because of change of law in a subsequent decision by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court which is impermissible in view of the provisions of Explanation of the Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is well settled that the first and foremost requirement while entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. An error, which is not self evident and to be detected by the process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .5.2014 and 31.12.2014 respectively. It was further contended that the Department prepared a list of eligible candidates from the cadre of CIT to be promoted as Principal CIT against these 300 newly created posts of Principal CIT. The Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) considered the eligible candidates and submitted its recommendations to the Appointments Committee of Cabinet (ACC) for approval of the proposal for empanelment of officers for promotion to the post of Principal CIT against the panel year 2013- 14 which was approved on 30.1.2015 and the names of the present applicants were figured at Serial Nos.11, 27 and 38 respectively in the list of officers approved in the regular panel. On the same day, the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance issued an order Annexure-A6 giving effect to the approval of the ACC. Unfortunately, by the time, the order Annexure-A6 could be issued, these applicants had got already retired from service and consequently, they could not be promoted despite their names having been found in the promotion list approved by the ACC. Hence, on these and several other grounds raised, the applicants sought the reliefs as prayed for before the Central ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n for consideration of notional promotion was allowed, thereby indicated that as on the date, though his name was due for consideration and as he was not promoted, he was entitled to be considered for notional promotion and to ensure that his eligibility for all benefits as if, he were to be in service at that time. Thereafter, though the respondents herein also approached the Tribunal by filing O.A.Nos.621-623/2016 for the same relief, the same was rejected observing that however, in the subsequent proceedings initiated by the respondents, the Tribunal had ignored to look into its own earlier order, and also the reasoning assigned by the Tribunal to consider the prayer of D.B. Manival Raju for notional promotion and consequential benefits is ignored, while considering the respondents' applications. However, there was no parity in the order passed by the Tribunal while considering the prayer of respondents which was similar to that of D.B. Manival Raju. Admittedly, the present review petitioners, who were parties to the order dated 21st January, 2020 passed in Writ Petition No.25502/2018 by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, have not challenged the said order and as such, it ha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s Court, the review petitioners herein, who were also parties to the case of D.B. Manival Raju, have not challenged the said order passed by the Central Administrative Tribunal and therefore, the Tribunal ought to have maintained parity while passing the orders. Thereby the review petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 13203/2020 on 28.7.2020 against the order dated 21.6.2017 made in O.A.No.170/01698/2015 by the Central Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru Bench in the case of one D.B. Manival Raju and another. Subsequently, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court allowed the said writ petition on 16.3.2021. Therefore, it is contended that the order passed by this Court needs to be reviewed. 9. The learned ASG would further contend that in view of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure, when the very proposition of the order relied upon by the Co-ordinate Bench while granting the relief in favour of the present respondents, has been subsequently removed by another Co-ordinate Bench in W.P.No. 13203/2020 on 16.3.2021, there is an error apparent on the face of the record and is also contrary to the principle of law, in view of the subsequent judgment d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of consideration would tell what inspires confidence in the judiciary and what does not. Judicial vacillations fall in the latter category and undermine respect of the judiciary and judicial institutions, denuding thereby respect for law and the confidence in the even-handedness in the administration of justice by courts. It would be gross injustice, to decide alternate cases on opposite principles. The power to alter a decision by review must be expressly conferred or necessarily inferred. The power of review -- and the limitations on the power -- under Article 137 are implicit recognitions of what would, otherwise, be final and irrevocable. No appeal could be made to the doctrine of inherent powers of the court either. Inherent powers do not confer, or constitute a source of jurisdiction. They are to be exercised in aid of a jurisdiction that is already invested. The remedy of the appellant, if any, is recourse to Article 137; nowhere else. This appears to me both good sense and good law. iv) Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos -vs- Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius AIR 1954 SC 526 particularly paragraph-34 to review the error apparent on the face of the record. Ther ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ein reliance was placed on the order dated 21.6.2017 in D.B. Manival Raju - applicant in O.A.No.170/01698/2015 which has reached finality. Thereby, the review petitioners have not come to the Court with clean hands and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, he sought to dismiss the review petition. 13. Smt. Anuradha Goyal, Party-in-Person/respondent No.1 adopting the arguments of respondent Nos.2 and 3 sought to dismiss the review petition. 14. The respondents/Parties-in-Person relied upon the following dictums of the Hon'ble Supreme Court: i) Kamlesh Verma -vs- Mayawati and Others (2013)8 SCC 320 reported in paragraphs-9, 12.3 and 23; ii) Inderchand Jain (Dead) through L.Rs., -vs- Motilal (Dead) through L.Rs. (2009)14 SCC 663 Paragraphs-7 to 11, 22 and 24; and also iii) Review Petition (Civil) No.3948/2018 in Writ Petition (Civil) No.231/2016 and connected cases D.D. 11th January, 2021 (Bench consisting of four Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court of India) holding that change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review, dismissed the review petitio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reliefs as prayed for before the Central Administrative Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the original applications and confirmed the instructions contained in Office Memorandums of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), but in the case of D.B. Manival Raju - in identical circumstances on par with the present respondents/applicants/Parties-in-Person, the Tribunal by the order dated 21.6.2017, allowed O.A.No.170/01698/2015 and granted the reliefs as sought for therein. 18. It is also not in dispute that aggrieved by the said order, the present respondents/Parties-in-Person filed a writ petition i.e., W.P. No.25502/2018 before this Court challenging the order dated 7.2.2018 passed by the Tribunal and a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court after hearing both the parties and considering the case on merits, by the order dated 21st January, 2020 allowed the writ petition and set aside the order dated 7.2.2018 passed by the Tribunal in O.A.Nos.621-623/2016 holding that the applicants were entitled to the reliefs as sought for on par with D.B. Manival Raju - whose application was allowed by the Tribunal in O.A.No.170/01698/2015. The said order passed by this Court has reached fina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lacing reliance on subsequent decision/change of law is not a ground for review in view of Explanation of provision of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under: 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. 20. The Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the case of Kamlesh Verma -vs- Mayawati and Others (2013)8 SCC 320 at paragraphs-15, 18, 19, 20, 20.1 and 20.2 has held as under: 15. 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. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. This Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] held as under : (SCC pp.718-19, paras 7-9) 7. It is well settled that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reopen concluded adjudications. This Court in Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 501] , held as under : (SCC pp. 504-505, paras 11-12) 11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases. 12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. 21. In the case of Ram Sahu (Dead through L.Rs. and Others -vs- Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others 2020 SCC OnLine SC 896, the Hon'ble Supreme Court at paragraph 33 held as under: 33.xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 29. In Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, (supra) this Court made a reference to the Explanation added to Order 47 by the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 and held: 13. In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Section 114 CPC has to be read, but this section does not even adumbrate the ambit of interference expected of the court since it merely states that it 'may make such order thereon as it thinks fit'. The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing 'on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason'. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers that there is error apparent on the face of the record to review the order dated 21st January, 2020 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Writ Petition No.25505/2018, but the reason for filing the review petition is only because of change of law in a subsequent decision by another Co-ordinate Bench of this Court which is impermissible in view of the provisions of Explanation of the Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 24. It is well settled that the first and foremost requirement while entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. An error, which is not self evident and to be detected by the process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the Court to exercise the power of review. Re-agitating the points already decided is impermissible in review proceedings and an error as contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the said purpose, the procedural conditions contained in Order 47 of the Code must be taken into consideration. Section 114 of the Code although does not prescribe any limitation on the power of the court but such limitations have been provided for in Order 47 of the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd) and Others in Review Petition Diary No. 45777/2018 D.D. 11th January, 2021 while considering review petition, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: The present review petitions have been filed against the final judgment and order dated 26.09.2018. We have perused the review petitions as well as the grounds in support thereof. In our opinion, no case for review of judgment and order dated 26.09.2018 is made out, We hasten to add that change in the law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. The review petitions are accordingly dismissed. 28. Though the learned ASG relied upon the dictum of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.M. Thomas -vs- State of Kerala and Another (2000)1 SCC 666 particularly paragraphs-14 and 16 wherein it has been held with regard to power and duty to review its own judgment that, the High Court, as a court of record, has a duty to itself to keep all its records correctly and in accordance with law. Hence, if any apparent error is noticed by the High Court in respect of any orders passed by it, the High Court has not on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid judgment has no application to the facts and circumstances of the present case. 32. In another judgment relied upon by the learned ASG in the case of A.R. Antulay -vs- R.S. Nayak and Another AIR 1988 SC 1531 (Criminal Appeal No. 468/1986) it has been held that the highest court in the land should not, by technicalities of procedure forge fetters on its own feet and disable itself in cases of serious miscarriages of justice. It is said that Life of law is not logic; it has been experience . But it is equally true as Cardozo said: But Holmes did not tell us that logic is to be ignored when experience is silent . Those who do not put the teachings of experience and the lessons of logic out of consideration would tell what inspires confidence in the judiciary and what does not, etc. 33. It was a case decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on merits of the criminal appeal while considering the constitutional provisions of Articles 131, 137, 139A, 136, 134, 140, 142, 145, 14, 21, 32 of the Constitution of India. In the case on hand, the review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of the Constitution of India to review the order passed by the Co-ordinat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
