TMI Blog2023 (1) TMI 789X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... itate the same issue as was raised and considered in the original round of litigation. If at all the Department believes that the conclusion arrived at earlier was contrary to the legal position, then review is not the appropriate remedy - there are no merit in the applications for review and dismiss the same. Application dismissed. - W.P.Nos.2601, 3650, 8382, 17588, 17614, 17622, 17630, 17702, 18084, 18938, 19214, 19670, 19792, 19841 & 20169 of 2020 - - - Dated:- 2-12-2022 - W.P.Nos. 164, 658, 696, 1424, 1899, 2018, 2314, 2319, 2745, 2922, 3122, 3127, 3397, 4415, 5536, 6729, 9758, 10351, 23818 23819 of 2021 and 21223 27091 of 2022 and Rev.Aplw.Nos.138 to 145 of 2022 and WMP.Nos.3020, 4299, 4300, 10070, 21800, 21803, 21841, 21843, 21851, 21853, 21858, 21860, 21959, 21960, 22469, 23501, 23502, 23503, 23801, 23805, 24546, 24308, 24459, 24461, 24508, 24912 24913 of 2020 and 223, 230, 719, 720, 755, 756, 1605, 1606, 2147, 2283, 2284, 2617, 2622, 3080, 3083, 3271, 3278, 3548, 3549, 3554, 3555, 3878, 3879, 5017, 5018, 6168, 6171, 7289, 10361, 10930 25083 of 2021 and 20207, 20209, 26305, 21989, 21992, 22002, 22001, 22009, 22010, 22012, 22013, 22019, 22015, 22017, 22022, 220 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n S.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V.Narayana Reddy and others [2022 SCC Online SC 1034] , three Judges of the Hon ble Supreme Court considered the scope of review under the C.P.C. reiterating at paragraphs 16 17, the settled proposition that such prayer is liable to be considered strictly in conformity with the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C. 5. The principles for exercise of review jurisdiction as laid down in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati [2013 (8) SCC 320] , read thus - 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words any other sufficient reason has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed. 10. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh [ 1964 AIR 1372] , cited and applied in most of the judgments cited by the parties relating to Order XLVII Rule 1, the question that arose for consideration was whether the statement in the order of the Court passed in September 1959 that no substantial question of law was involved, constituted an error apparent on the face of record. 11. In that context, the Bench held that the fact that on an earlier occasion, the Court had held on an identical set of facts that a substantial question of law arose, would not per se lead to the conclusion that statement might itself be erroneous. Similarly, even at the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an error apparent on the face of the record for, to quote the Bench, 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 dis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13. In Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. L.T.Governor of Delhi [45 STC 212] , three judges of the Hon ble Supreme Court while rejecting the review stated thus: It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan. For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment. G. L. Gupta v. D. N. Mehta. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. O. N. Mahindroo v. Distt. Judge Delhi Anr. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Article 145. In a civi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
