The High Court of Calcutta, while disposing of a review petition filed for review of the judgment and order dated 12th March 2024 passed by this Court, held that the court decided the issue by passing the specific order; if the matter is now to be considered under this review application, the matter has to be decided on merit again.
Brief Facts:
The Petitioner is before the Court seeking review of an order, which, according to the petitioner, suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record that can be corrected only by means of review.
Contentions of the Petitioner:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submitted that while disposing of the issue this Court has not finally concluded the decision on whether the application for review is barred under the limitation. He argued that when this Court observed that the application for recalling is barred by limitation, the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain the merit of the recalling application. He contended that the error as mentioned in the review application is error apparent so, it can be rectified by a review application.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent submitted that the proposed ground for review is not maintainable. He argued that there is a very limited scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC and the instant ground for review is not maintainable under the scope of the review.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that this court decided the issue by passing the specific order; if the matter is now to be considered by virtue of this review application, the matter has to be decided on merit again.
The Court observed that a review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC cannot empower a Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction so as to interpret its own order. The argument that the finding of this court should have been otherwise… can only be answered in an appeal, not in a Review. This Court cannot go into the merit of the matter again. The Court said that the point which was raised in the grounds of the review application appears to be not maintainable.
The decision of the Court:
The Calcutta High Court, disposing of the petition, held that there is no justification to entertain the instant review application.
Case Title: Jai Badrinath Niketan Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. IDFC First Bank Ltd
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Subhendu Samanta
Case No.: RVW 92 of 2024
Advocate for the Petitioner: Mr. Krishnaraj Thaker
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Pranit Bag
Read Judgment @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
