TMI Blog2022 (8) TMI 1337X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... less 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. In PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS VERSUS SUMITRI DEVI AND OTHERS [ 1997 (10) TMI 369 - SUPREME COURT ] , stating that an error that is not self- evident and the one thathas to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review, this Court held that With a view to do complete justice between the parties, it appears appropriate to us to direct that the Executing Court shall, while deciding the Executing Application on merits also consider this aspect and return a finding as to when the cause of action accrued to the decree holder and the consider the question as to which Article of the Limitation Act applies to the facts of the case. It has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court s jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at Hyderabad, allowing the review petitions filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 6 herein (IA No.2 of 2014 in Revision CRPMP No. 6377 of 2014 moved in and Civil Revision Petition No.2786 of 2013 and IA No.1 of 2014 in Revision CRMP No.4997 / 2014 moved in and Civil Revision Petition No.2787 /2013). As a result of allowing the review petitions, the common judgment and order dated 09th July, 2013 passed by the predecessor Bench upholding the common order dated 23rd March, 2013 in Cases No. F1/3/2005 and F1/4/2005 passed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, has been set aside and as a sequel thereto, the orders dated 31st March, 1967 passed by the Tahsildar, Shadnagar, accepting the surrender of protected tenancy rights by the ancestors of the appellant have been confirmed. 3. The appeals have a chequered history that dates back to the year 1967. The facts relevant for deciding the present appeals are as follows:- 3.1 Late Shri Chandra Reddy and late Shri Chenna Reddy, both sons of Buchi Reddy, were protected tenants in respect of separate parcels of land situated in different survey numbers of Kammadanam Village, Shadnagar Mandal, Mahabubnagar District Hereinafter referred to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... when they were trying to obtain 38-E Certificate from the authorities. Only in the year 2001 when the legal heirs of the protected tenants had applied for the final record of tenancy, did they discover that the names of the protected tenants had been struck off on the basis of the purported surrender proceedings conducted by the Tehsildar in the year 1967. Challenging the said surrender proceedings, the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant being the protected tenants, preferred appeals before the Joint Collector in February, 2002 along with an application seeking condonation of delay. The said appeals were allowed by the Joint Collector, Mahabubnagar, being the Appellate Authority, vide order dated 2nd April, 2005. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents approached the High Court of Andhra Pradesh For short High Court raising a plea that it was an ex-parte order and filed two Civil Revision Petitions (CRP No. 4620/2005 and CRP No. 4988/2005), which were allowed, vide order dated 19th September, 2006 and the matters were remanded back for fresh disposal. On a re-hearing, the Appellate Authority passed an order on 23rd March, 2013 whereby, the order dated 31st March, 19 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions and once the first set of review petitions were dismissed by the High Court, vide order dated 20th February, 2014 and no new grounds were taken by the respondents No.1 to 6 subsequently, there was no occasion to allow the second set of review petitions; that the respondents No. 1 to 6 did not take a plea that the documents subsequently filed by them, were not in their knowledge when they had filed the civil revision petitions and the first set of review petitions before the High Court for attracting the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Stating that the scope of review is very limited and a review application can only be entertained if there is any error apparent on the face of the record, which the respondents No. 1 to 6 have failed to point out in the instant case, learned Senior Counsel submitted that the High Court ought to have dismissed the same outright. It was argued that by virtue of the impugned order, the High Court has virtually treated the review petitions filed by the respondents No. 1 to 6 as independent appeals, which is impermissible. To buttress the aforesaid submissions made on the limited ambit and scope of a review petition and the bar on filing succe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rt by filing fresh appeals which were knocked off vide order dated 09th July, 2013 and their review petitions were also dismissed on 20th February, 2014. Against the said dismissal orders, the respondents had to approach this Court. The petitions for special leave to appeal preferred by them were disposed of vide order dated 4th July, 2014 that has been extracted in para 5 hereinabove. 7. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that in the light of the permission granted by this Court, the respondents had filed review petitions in the Civil Revision Petitions before the High Court after obtaining certified copies of the relevant documents forming a part of the revenue records. Only after considering the said documents did the learned Single Judge allow the review petitions for cogent and valid reasons that do not deserve any interference. It has been canvassed on behalf of the respondents that the legal heirs of the protected tenant had knowledge about the surrender of the subject land right from the year 1967 to 2001 and they were also aware of the fact that the names of their ancestors were not reflected in the protected tenants register. The real position is that the ancestors of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... review petitions filed by the respondents when they could not demonstrate emergence of any new facts or point out any error apparent on the face of the record, for allowing the review applications, must be put to test by examining the relevant provisions of law that governs review jurisdiction. 11. Section 114 of the CPC which is the substantive provision, deals with the scope of review and states as follows: Review:- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved:- (a) 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 Code; 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. 12. The grounds available for filing a review application against a judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in the following words: 1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved - (a) by a decree or order from whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib (1975) 1 SCC 674 this Court observed : A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality. (emphasis added) 15. In Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others (1997) 8 SCC 715 , stating that an error that is not self- evident and the one thathas to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review, this Court held as under: 7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. 1964 SCR (5) 174 this Court opined: 11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 of the Constitution prescribe that in civil cases, review lies on any of the grounds specified in Order 47 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides: 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 to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. Under Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules no review lies except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record in criminal cases. Order XL Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he learned counsel appearing for the parties seeking review of the judgment. The only arguments advanced were that the judgment interpreting Section 494 amounted to violation of some of the fundamental rights. No other sufficient cause has been shown for reviewing the judgment. The words any-other sufficient reason appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC must mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule as was held in Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius 1955 SCR 520 . Error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa 1955 SCR 250 this Court held that such error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad AIR 1955 SC 233 , it was held: It is essential that it should be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. The real difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the statement of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise. (emphasis added) 18. 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. This point has been elucidated in Jain Studios Ltd. V. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 501 where it was held thus: 11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that vir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese Iron Ores Ltd. Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 337 ,. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: - (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not 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. (vi) 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 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. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court earlier. (emphasis added) 22. In the captioned judgment, the term mistake or error apparent has been discussed in the following words: 22. The term mistake or error apparent by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record 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 exerc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t from exercising its power to review a decision. However, an order can be reviewed by the Court only on the grounds prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The said power cannot be exercised as an inherent power and nor can appellate power be exercised in the guise of exercising the power of review. 26. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court s jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revision petitions that were ultimately dismissed by the High Court vide common judgment dated 9th July, 2013. The High Court refused to accept the version of the respondents that the protected tenants had surrendered the subject lands in favour of the landlord. The discussion in the judgment regarding the purported surrender proceedings of protected rights by the tenants before the Tehsildar in the year 1967 is revealing and extracted hereinbelow for ready reference :- 2. The legal representatives of the protected tenants were not parties to the alleged surrender proceedings before the then Tahsildar in the year 1967. There is nothing on record to show that they were ever dispossessed from the lands, so that they can take necessary steps under relevant provisions of the Act before the authorities concerned. After coming to know about earlier proceedings which are stated to be in the year 1967, they rushed to the Joint Collector with the present appeals. There is nothing on record to impute knowledge of the proceedings of the year 1967 to them at any time prior to filing of the appeals before the Joint Collector. 3. Though the alleged surrender of protected tenancy ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gar by way of surrender of protected tenancy rights under Section 19 of the Act was not only ante dated but also cooked up. Hence, find no reason to come to a different conclusion from that of the Joint Collector in this revision petition. The common order passed by the Joint Collector is proper, legal and regular. 29. In the first round of the review proceedings filed by the respondents for seeking review of the order and judgment dated 9th July, 2013, they had sought to raise, amongst others, the plea of limitation, the purported error on the part of the Appellate Authority in calling for the records from the office of the Revenue Divisional Officer for deciding the case and the alleged misconstruction of the ceiling proceedings conducted by the Land Reforms Tribunal, all of which were earlier argued and did not find favour with the High Court. But, at no stage was a plea taken by the respondents with regard to the discovery of new documents which could not have been produced by them after undertaking due diligence before the order dated 9th July, 2013 came to be passed. When the first set of review petitions were dismissed by the learned Single Judge by a detailed order da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd set of Civil Revision Petitions assailing the order dated 23rd March, 2013 that culminated in the common judgment and order dated 9th July, 2013 passed by the High Court; the fourth opportunity arose when the respondents filed two review applications for seeking review of the common judgment and order dated 9th July, 2013, that came to be dismissed vide order dated 20th February, 2014; and the fifth opportunity arose when the respondents preferred petitions for special leave to appeal before this Court being aggrieved by the common judgment and orders dated 9th July, 2013 and the review order dated 20th February, 2014 passed by the High Court. 32. Pertinently, this Court had declined to entertain the said petitions preferred by the respondents but having regard to the submission made on their behalf that they would be in a position to file documents to show that there was surrender of tenancy on the part of the protected tenants and their legal heirs, it was left open to the respondents to file a review petition before the High Court. It was only thereafter that the respondents woke up to filing certified copies of those documents, xerox copies whereof had already been filed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... order. What to speak of conclusive proof of having undertaken an exercise of due diligence for accessing the relevant documents, there is not an averment made by the respondents in the second set of review petitions to the effect that they could not trace the documents in question earlier or that they had made sincere efforts to obtain certified copies thereof before the common order dated 9th July, 2013 was passed, but could not do so for some cogent and valid reasons. 34. In other words, nothing has been stated on affidavit to substantiate the plea taken by the respondents at such a belated stage that the documents sought to be filed by them with the second set of review petitions had come to light after passing of the judgment and order dated 9th July, 2013. Under the garb of the liberty granted to them, the respondents have tried to fill in the glaring loopholes and introduce evidence in the review proceedings that was all along in their power and possession and ought to have seen the light of the day much earlier. In fact, it appears that the Civil Revision Petitions were originally argued to the hilt on several other grounds, not limited just to the revenue record, which w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
