Gujarat High Court
Menderda Gram Panchayat vs Hakkabhai Gandabhai Tariya on 3 January, 2025
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/29/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 29 of 2025
In R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 657 of 2023
With
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 30 of 2025
In
R/LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 655 of 2023
==========================================================
MENDERDA GRAM PANCHAYAT
Versus
HAKKABHAI GANDABHAI TARIYA & ANR.
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR DIPAL R RAVAIYA(6532) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR SAMIR B GOHIL(5718) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI
Date : 03/01/2025
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV) 1 These review applications are filed by the Panchayat challenging the order passed in intra court appeals on the ground that in a subsequent decision, the Division Bench of this Court, by its judgement and order dated 28.07.2023 has taken a different view in a different matter, albeit, pertaining to the same Gram Panchayat.
Page 1 of 4 Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Mon Jan 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 06 22:04:07 IST 2025NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/29/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025 undefined 2 Reading the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, would make it clear that review of the matter would not be maintainable merely because the subsequent Bench has taken a different view.
3 The Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati & Ors., reported in AIR 2013 SC 3301, while discussing the scope of review, has held as under:
"15. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgement in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.
Summary of the Principles:
16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
(A) 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 Page 2 of 4 Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Mon Jan 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 06 22:04:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/29/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025 undefined record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520: (AIR 1954 SC 526), to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principle have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. And Ors., JT 2013 (8) SC 275: (2013 AIR SCW 2905).
(B) 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 view 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 Page 3 of 4 Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Mon Jan 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 06 22:04:07 IST 2025 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/29/2025 ORDER DATED: 03/01/2025 undefined 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."
4 In view of the above, the present applications for review will not survive and are hereby accordingly disposed of, as rejected.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J) (J. C. DOSHI,J) BIMAL Page 4 of 4 Uploaded by BIMAL B CHAKRAVARTY(HC01089) on Mon Jan 06 2025 Downloaded on : Mon Jan 06 22:04:07 IST 2025