Allahabad High Court
The New India Assurance Company ... vs Smt. Gayatri And Others on 17 August, 2021
Bench: Jaspreet Singh
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
?Court No. - 19
Case :- FIRST APPEAL FROM ORDER No. - 163 of 2012
Appellant :- The New India Assurance Company Ltd.
Respondent :- Smt. Gayatri And Others
Counsel for Appellant :- Aanand Mohan,I P S Chadha
Counsel for Respondent :- Gyan Singh Chauhan,Mamta Pandey,Prem Chandra Rai,R.P. Tripathi,Rakesh K. Tripathi,Saima Khan,Satyendra Kumar
Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh,J.
Review Application No.16171 of 2020
The instant review application has been moved by Shri Ashutosh Kumar Rai, the original respondent no.5 in the appeal for reviewing the judgment dated 09.12.2019 passed by this Court. The aforesaid review application is also accompanied by an affidavit seeking condonation of delay bearing C.M.Application No.16168 of 2020.
The Court has considered the application seeking condonation of delay and the ground found is sufficient. Accordingly, the delay of 28 days is condoned.
Learned counsel for the review-applicant has also filed a supplementary-affidavit which is taken on record. Alongwith the said supplementary-affidavit, a copy of the extract of driving licence has been brought on record. The ground urged by the learned counsel for the review-applicant is that the respondent no.5, who is the owner of the offending vehicle, though had filed the valid licence of the driver, however, the same was not considered by the Tribunal below. Though the Insurance Company had preferred an appeal against the award but the respondent no.5, namely, Ashutosh Kumar Rai, who is the review-applicant, had also filed his cross objection and had also filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to bring on record the extract of the driving licence to indicate that on the date of the accident, the driver possessed a valid and effective driving licence. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the Court while dismissing the appeal as well as the cross objections by means of judgment dated 09.12.2019, against which the instant review application has been preferred.
The Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the review-applicant and from the perusal of the material on record, it indicates that the respondent no.5 had also filed cross objection. Alongwith the cross objection the respondent no.5 had moved an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC. The Court while considering the application as well as the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties by means of order dated 09.12.2019 rejected the application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC and thereafter considering the merits of both the appeals as well as the cross objection rejected the same.
The record also indicates that the same issue which has been considered and decided in detail by the Court is now sought to be raked up again in review which is legally not permissible. This Court in the case of Smt. Rajeshwari & others Vs. Smt. Meharunnishan & others passed in Civil Misc. Review Application Defective No.86 of 2021 decided on 15.07.2021 had the occasions to consider the scope of review by relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Ram Sahu and others Vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and others reported in 2020 SCC Online SC 896. In the case of Ram Sahu (supra) the Apex Court has considered various other earlier authorities on the scope of review. The relevant paras of the said judgment is being reproduced hereinafter.
"35. The principles which can be culled out from the abovenoted judgments are:
(i) The power of the Tribunal to review its order/decision under Section 22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the power of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) The Tribunal can review its decision on either of the grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not otherwise
(iii) The expression "any other sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of other specified grounds.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and which can be discovered by a long process of reasoning, cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of record justifying exercise of power under Section 22(3)(f).
(v) An erroneous order/decision cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise of power of review.
(vi) A decision/order cannot be reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal or of a superior court.
(vii) While considering an application for review, the tribunal must confine its adjudication with reference to material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent.
(viii) Mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The party 33 seeking review has also to show that such 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/tribunal earlier."
34. To appreciate the scope of review, it would be proper for this Court to discuss the object and ambit of Section 114 CPC as the same is a substantive provision for review when a person considering himself aggrieved either by a decree or by an order of Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or where there is no provision for appeal against an order and decree, may apply for review of the decree or order as the case may be in the Court, which may order or pass the decree. From the bare reading of Section 114 CPC, it appears that the said substantive power of review under Section 114 CPC has not laid down any condition as the condition precedent in exercise of power of review nor the said Section imposed any prohibition on the Court for exercising its power to review its decision. However, an order can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which has been elaborately discussed hereinabove. An application for review is more restricted than that of an appeal and the Court of review has limited jurisdiction as to the definite limit mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC itself. The powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of power of review."
Considering the aforesaid principles, this Court finds that there is no error apparent on the face of the record and by moving the review application the appellant is attempting to get the appeal re-heard on merits which is not within the scope of review.
In view of the aforesaid, this Court cannot persuade itself to entertain the review application. Accordingly, the same is rejected. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 17.8.2021
ank
