1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
REVP No. 27 of 2022
Anuranjna Ekka D/o Late Lgnesh Ekka Aged About 41 Years Profession
Patwari, P.H. No. 18, Head Office Village Janji, Sub Tahsil Seepat, Tehsil
Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh , Permanent R/o Ganesh Nagar,
Nayapara , Mariyamtoli, Police Station Sirgitti, Tahsil And District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And
Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Police Station And
Post Rakhi, Nawa Raipur , Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Collector District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4. Tehsildar Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
5. Naib Tahsildar Sub Tahsil Seepat , Tahsil Masturi , District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
6. Monika Verma Mishra Deputy Collector , Working On The Post Of Sub
Divisional Officer (R) , Masturi , District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
7. Manoj Khande Working Tehsildar , Tehsil Masturi , District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
8. Sandhya Namdeo Working Naib Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Seepat, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
9. Tulsi Rathore Tehsildar , Working Additional Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Seepat
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
10. Chandramani Pandey Kanoongo, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
REVP No. 29 of 2022
Vaishali Patel W/o Vijay Kumar Patel, Aged About 33 Years Profession
Patwari, P.H.No. 19, Head Office Village Devri, Sub Tahsil Seepat, Tehsil
Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary, Department Of Revenue And
Disaster Management, Mahanadi Bhavan, Mantralaya, Police Station And
Post Rakhi, Nawa Raipur, Atal Nagar, District Raipur Chhattisgarh.
2. Collector District Bilapsur Chhattisgarh.
3. Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
4. Tahsidar, Tehsiul Masturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
5. Naib Tahsildar, Sub Tahsil Seepat, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
6. Monika Verma Mishra, Deputy Collector, Working On The Post Of Sub
Divisional Officer (R), Msturi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
7. Manoj Khande, Working Tehsildar, Tehsil Masturi, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
8. Sandhya Namdeo, Working Naib Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Seepat, District
Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
2
9. Tulsi Rathore, Tehsildar, Working Additional Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Seepat,
District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh.
10. Chandramani Pandey, Kanoongo, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur
Chhattisgarh.
---- Respondents
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For applicants : Mr. Santosh Pandey, Adv. For Respondents No. 1 to 5 : Mr. Vikram Sharma, Dy. Govt. Adv. Reserved on 20-06-2022 Order delivered on 07-7-2022
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Mr. Arup Kumar Goswami, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Chandravanshi, Judge CAV Order Per N.K. Chandravanshi,
1. Since the grounds raised in both the review petitions are common, hence they are being heard together and decided by this common order.
2. Both the applicants holding the post of Patwari had filed two separate writ petitions bearing Writ Petition No. 4408/2020 (Anuranjna Ekka -v- State of CG and others) and Writ Petition No. 4425/2020 (Vaishali Patel -v- State of CG and others) challenging their transfer and suspension, which were dismissed by learned Single Judge vide order 3-12-2020 and 26-11-2020 respectively, and the writ appeals bearing Writ Appeal No. 2/2021 and Writ Appeal No. 3/2021 preferred by the applicants against above orders were also dismissed by this Court vide judgments dated 2-2-2022. These review petitions under Order 47 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (in short 'CPC') and Rule 90(1) of the High Court of Chhattisgarh Rules, 2007 have been filed by the applicants for review of the judgment/ order dated 2-2-2022 passed by this court in Writ Appeal No. 2/2021 and Writ Appeal No. 3/2021, on identical grounds, therefore, they are being decided by this common order.
3
3. Learned counsel for the applicants submits that writ appeals preferred by the applicants against the orders of learned Single Judge, have been wrongly dismissed by this Court. It is further submitted that the applicants had raised number of issues/points, which have not been dealt with in the impugned judgments. It is also submitted that there are number of errors and mistakes in the impugned judgments, which are apparent on the face of record. He reiterates the grounds mentioned in the review petitions which are as follows :-
i. This Court seems to have neither considered nor perused the oral and important submissions, arguments and issues with regard to the subject matter during the course of hearing of the applicants; ii. As per decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Central Board of Trusties -v- Indore Composite Pvt. Ltd. [(2018) 8 SCC 443], this Court ought to have framed necessary issues/points of determination and then considering the material brought on record by the parties to substantiate their case, ought to have decided such issues by giving a reasoned finding as per settled principles of law. Though in the order impugned, there is discussion about framing of specific issue by this Court, however, no such important issue was ever framed;
iii. This Court has not considered the parawise points/grounds urged in the writ petitions/appeals filed by the applicants, not given finding thereon as required under the law and passed the impugned order in a mechanical manner ignoring the most important material available on record, hence, the same is required to be reviewed/ recalled;
iv. As per Order 47 Para - II of the CPC, it is clear that any order can be reviewed if it suffers from prima-facie error apparent on the face of record; v. As per Section 114(A) and Order 47(A) of the CPC, review is permissible when despite there being provision of appeal, the same has not 4 been preferred. In the present case, the review is being filed because though the order impugned is appealable before Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP, but the same is not only time taking process but would also be costlier. Hence, the applicants have filed the present petitions for review/recall of the impugned orders, which is legal and fundamental right of the applicants; vi. From perusal of the impugned orders, it is clear that this Court has not decided the real issue raised by the applicants and overlooking the important documents filed by the applicants in support of their contention and as such, the orders impugned are very much re-viewable and recallable; vii. This Court ought to have framed specific issues on the basis of pleadings of the respective parties before finally deciding the petitions and then afforded reasonable opportunity to the parties to advance arguments on those specific issues and then only, it should have decided the petitions. However, it has not been done in the present case;
viii. This Court has not passed the order in accordance with law. As per law, since the applicants in the writ petitions had sought for issuance of Mandamus, this Court ought to have observed in the conclusion that "We order" but it has not been done;
ix. While passing final orders, this court ought to have mentioned in the said orders the facts and grounds urged by the applicants, brief parawise rebuttal of the same by the respondents, main points of the applicants raised during arguments and their rebuttal by the respondents and then parawise and reasoned adjudication of the dispute by this Court with the supporting documents by granting or refusing the reliefs sought for by the applicants; x. No notice was given to the respondents, who were the most important and necessary party in this case, by learned Single Bench. In the second round of the litigation, it was shockingly ignored by the Division Bench, no sufficient reason was assigned therefor. In this case, private respondents 5 have not ever been noticed and no justified reason has been assigned therefor, whereas it was a necessary and contesting party, and according to settled principle of law, private respondents should have been afforded opportunity of hearing to put forth its stands, which has not been done; xi. This Court have also ignored the application for para-wise and reasoned adjudication of all the points and grounds raised in writ petition for passing a well speaking and reasoned order, and it has not been decided prior to final disposal of the petitions. This method is serious mistake; xii. The impugned order does not speak about the balance of convenience in the given facts and circumstances of the case as because during the course of argument, the applicants have put forth the case law and important interim orders passed by this Court which has been ignored/not mentioned by the Division Bench in the orders impugned;
xiii. The case laws cited by the respondents and relied upon by this Court in the impugned order are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case and they seem to have been misinterpreted by this Court; xiv. Time and again, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasized on the Courts the need to pass reasoned order in every case, which must contain the narration of bare facts of the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case and urged by the learned counsel for the parties in support of its conclusion;
It is really unfortunate that the Division Bench failed to keep in mind these principles while disposing of the important writ petition. Such order has undoubtedly caused prejudice to the parties, because it deprived them to know the reasons as to why one party has won and other had lost. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that we can never countenance the manner in which such order was passed by the High Court which was 6 compelled us to remand the matter to the High Court for deciding the writ petition on merits;
xv. The above errors pointed out by the applicants are apparent on the face of record, hence the impugned orders deserve to be reviewed and liable to be recalled;
4. While arguing this case, learned counsel for the applicants submits that although, the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has power to transfer a Patwari, but in both the cases, at the time of transfer of applicants, ban in transfer had been imposed by the State Government, therefore, their transfer orders, which were challenged by both the applicants in the writ petitions and writ appeals, were illegal and this aspect has not been considered in the writ appeal, which is required to be reviewed by this Court and the orders impugned be recalled and appropriate order may be passed.
5. Learned counsel for the applicants in support of his submissions, places reliance on the decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Central Board of Trustees and others (supra), Municipal Corporation of Grater Mumbai and anr. -v- Pratibha Industries Limited and others, [(2019) 3 SCC 203], and the Agricultural Produce Marketing Committee, Banglore -v- State of Karnataka [(2022 LiveLaw (SC) 303].
6. On the other hand, learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the applicants. He submits that both the applicants have been posted on the post of Patwari and they had challenged their transfer order and suspension order in writ petitions on identical grounds, which were dismissed by learned Single Judge. Their writ appeals were also dismissed by this Court. It is further submitted that core issues involved in those cases were, whether the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has power to transfer and suspend a Patwari ? These issues have been very categorically dealt with and decided by this Court, which do not call 7 for any review. It is further submitted that the applicants have not stated any legal grounds, on which, impugned orders can be reviewed. Without any legal ground, review of the impugned order would amount to reconsideration of the case, which is not permissible under the review jurisdiction envisaged by law and, therefore, the review petitions filed by the applicants are liable to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record, as well as the orders impugned passed by this Court.
8. Before dealing with the issues raised by the applicants, it is apt to note that the applicants have moved these petitions under Order 47 read with Section 114 of the C.P.C., which provides power to the Court for review of its order. According to these provisions, the Court of review has only limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used in Order 47 Rule 1 of the C.P.C. It may allow a review on three specified grounds, namely -
(1) discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant's knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made;
(2) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (3) for any other sufficient reason.
9. While considering the power of review of a Court under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, Hon'ble Apex Court in case of Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, [(1995) 1 SCC 170] has held that :
"the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. The review petition has to be 8 entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. An error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. The limitation of powers of court under Order 47 Rule 1, CPC is similar to the jurisdiction available to the High court while seeking review of the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
10. In the case of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, [(2019) 20 SCC 753], Hon'ble Supreme Court while considering ambit and scope of power of review, has considered its various judgments and observed as below:-
"15.1. In Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, [(2009) 14 SCC 663 ] it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 as under: (SCC pp. 669 & 675) "10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.
11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2000) 6 SCC 224 ] this Court held:9
'56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power.
The review cannot be treated like an appeal in
disguise.'
* * *
33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under:
'The law on the subject--exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder:
(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the face of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.10
(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.
(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.' In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied."
15.2. In Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa, [(1999) 9 SCC 596] , it was observed:
"29. In review proceedings, the Tribunal deviated from the principles laid down above which, we must say, is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy had been finally decided. This, we are constrained to say, is not the scope of review under Section 22(3)
(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985...."
15.3. Similarly, in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, [(1997) 8 SCC 715] the principles were summarised as under:
"9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to 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 11 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC 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."
17. We have gone through both the judgments of the High Court in the instant case and considered rival submissions on the point. It is well settled that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. To justify exercise of review jurisdiction, the error must be self-evident. Tested on this parameter, the exercise of jurisdiction in the present case was not correct. The exercise undertaken in the present case, in our considered view, was as if the High Court was sitting in appeal over the earlier decision dated 17-2-2017 (Smriti Madan Kansagra, (supra). Even assuming that there was no correct appreciation of facts and law in the earlier judgment, the parties could be left to challenge the decision in an appeal. But the review was not a proper remedy at all. In our view, the High Court erred in entertaining the review petition and setting aside the earlier view dated 17-2-2017......."
11. Thus, perusal of provisions of Order 47 Rule (1) of the CPC and various pronouncements of Hon'ble Supreme Court in this subject, makes it clear that a judgment or order may be open to review, if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of record or on other grounds envisaged in 12 aforesaid provision. 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected".
Further, a review cannot be claimed or available merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact, which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being noted for establishing it. It may be pointed out that expression of 'any other sufficient reason' used in Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC means, a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule.
12. Considering the aforesaid aspects of law and judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court, if we consider the submissions and grounds raised by the applicants in the instant case, we do not find any apparent error or mistake on the face of record which inspires this Court to review the impugned orders. It is also pertinent to mention here that, in impugned orders, in opening paragraphs, after referring facts of the case and submissions made by learned counsel, in para 8, it has been specifically mentioned that before passing of impugned orders, both the learned counsel for the parties were heard and materials available on record were perused with utmost circumspection, therefore, it cannot be said that points raised by learned counsel for the applicants have not been considered.
13. The core issues involved in both the writ appeals were, whether the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) has power to transfer and to suspend a Patwari or not, and these issues have been considered and decided on the basis of the law governing the field. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicants also conceded that the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) 13 holds such power. It is further submitted by learned counsel for the applicants that ban on transfer imposed by the State Government was prevailing, despite that, the applicants were transferred, therefore, the order of Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue), which was under challenge in the writ petitions and in the writ appeals, were illegal and this aspect of the matter has not been considered in the writ appeals. It seems that this is the main grievance of the applicants for calling of review of the impugned orders, but this aspect of the matter has also been considered and dealt with categorically, in paras 16, 17 and 18 of the impugned orders referring various judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court.
14. Learned counsel for the applicants has filed various orders passed by learned Single Judge in various cases pertaining to transfer of Patwaris wherein stay has been granted for limited period i.e. till the disposal of the representation made in this regard, but it is well settled that every case should be dealt with and evaluated on its own facts & merits, and writ appeals have been considered and decided on the basis of their own facts and merits in accordance with law. This aspect of the matter has also been dealt with in para 20 of the impugned orders.
15. During the course of argument, learned counsel for the applicants was not able to show the error or mistake in the impugned orders, apparent on the face of record. Only saying that there is error or mistake apparent on the face of record is not sufficient to review the orders.
16. The grounds raised by learned counsel for the applicants indicate that the applicants are not satisfied with the outcome of the impugned orders, but such dis-satisfaction with the result cannot be a ground of review.
17. In the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (supra), referred by learned counsel for the applicants, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that, being a superior court of record, the jurisdiction to recall its own 14 order is inherent in the High Court. There is no dispute that in appropriate cases, the High Court has power to review its order. Other cases referred by learned counsel for the applicants have no relevancy in respect of review jurisdiction of this Court. Hence, the rulings cited by him are not helpful to him in view of facts of instant cases.
18. In view of aforesaid discussion and observations, we do not find any ground raised by the applicants, which may require review the impugned orders.
19. Consequently, we find that instant review petitions have no merit. Accordingly the review petitions are hereby dismissed.
No cost.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arup Kumar Goswami) (N.K. Chandravanshi)
Chief Justice Judge
Pathak/-