Arun Mishra vs Chief Engineer (Distribution), ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 20618 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:156910-DB
 
Court No. - 40
 

 
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 19 of 2023
 
Applicant :- Arun Mishra
 
Opposite Party :- Chief Engineer (Distribution), Purvanchal Vidhut Vitrana Nigam Ltd And Another
 
Counsel for Applicant :- In Person
 
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.,Narendra Kumar Tiwari
 

 
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.

Hon'ble J.J. Munir,J.

(Civil Misc. Review Application No.19 of 2023 filed on behalf of the petitioner).

1. Heard Sri Arun Mishra, Advocate in person and Sri Narendra Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for the respondents.

2. This application has been filed for reviewing the order dated 16.09.2022 by which the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) No.1685 of 2022 filed by the applicant was dismissed by this Court with following observations:-

"The petitioner,appearing in person,who is an Advocate, at the time of arguments, submitted that for the last 10 years he is after the Advocate General's Office, though he got license to practice as an Advocate in 2019 only. The petitioner is not ready to share with the Court as to what he was doing prior to having license to practice as an Advocate before this Court. He is alsonot ready to answer some uncomfortable questions put to him."

3. We have occasion to peruse record in question and find that in the aforesaid PIL the petitioner has sought direction to the Chief Engineer (Distribution), Purvanchal Vidyut Vitran Nigam Limited, Allahabad (respondent no.1) to obtain statutory clearance from Deputy Director, Electrical Safety, Government of U.P., Allahabad (respondent no.2) before energizing the electricity line of office of Advocate General, Ambedkar Bhawan, Allahabad and this Court had dismissed the writ petition on 16.09.2022 with the aforesaid observation. We have also perused the grounds taken in the review application in question and the order dated 16.09.2022 passed by this Court and find that each and every facet of the matter that has been raised, has been examined by this Court.

4. The review application can be allowed only on (1) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review, or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or (2) when some mistake or error on the face of record is found, or (3) on any analogous ground. But review is not permissible on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits as the same would be the province of an Appellate Court.

5. In the case of Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909, Hon'ble Apex Court took the view that there is nothing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which precludes High Court from exercising the power of Review, which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. It was held that the power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in reviewing its own orders, every Court including High Court inheres plenary jurisdiction, to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.

6. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.P. Sharma v. A.P. Sharma, 1979 (4) SCC 389, has cautioned that power of review of High Court is not the same as appellate powers and review on the ground that certain documents have not been considered, which formed the record, cannot be ground of Review. Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meera Bhanja v. Nirmla K. Chaudhary, 1995 (1) SCC 170, has taken the view that review must be confined to error apparent on the face of record, error must be such as would be apparent on mere looking without any long drawn process of reasoning, and reappraisal of evidence on record for finding out error would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which is not at all permissible.

7. In the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137, Hon'ble Supreme Court has made the following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record :-

"An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior Court to issue such a writ.

In our view the aforesaid approach of the Division Bench dealing with the review proceedings clearly shows that it has overstepped its jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. By merely styling the reasoning adopted by the earlier Division Bench as suffering from a patent error. It would not become a patent error or error apparent in view of the settled legal position indicated by us earlier. In substance, the review Bench has re appreciated the entire evidence, sat almost as Court of appeal and has reversed the findings reached by the earlier Division Bench Even if the earlier Division Bench findings regarding C.S. Plot No. 74 were found to be erroneous, it would be no ground for reviewing the same, as that would be the function of an appellate Court. Learned counsel for the respondent was not in a position to point out how the reasoning adopted and conclusion reached by the Review Bench can be supported within the narrow and limited scope of Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. Right or wrong, the earlier Division Bench judgment had become final so far as the High Court was concerned. It could not have been reviewed by reconsidering the entire evidence with a view to finding out the alleged apparent error for justifying the invocation of review powers. Only on that short ground, therefore, this appeal is required to be allowed. The final decision dated 8th July, 1986 of the Division Bench dismissing the appeal from appellate decree No.569 of 1973 insofar as C.S. Plot No. 74 is concerned as well as the review judgment dated 5th September, 1984 in connection with the very same plot, i.e. C.S. Plot No. 74 are set aside and the earlier judgment of the High Court dated 3rd August, 1978 allowing the Second Appeal regarding suit plot No. 74 is restored. The appeal is accordingly allowed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs."

8. In Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others, 1997 (8) J.T. SC 480, Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken the view that review proceeding has to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47, and therein the two earlier judgments referred to above have been relied upon. Again in Smt. Meera Bhanja v. St. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, 1985 (1) SCC 170, while quoting this approval a passage from Abhiram Taleshwar Sharma v. Abhiram Pishak Sharma & Ors. (1979 (4) SCC 389, Hon'ble Supreme Court once again held that 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.

9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is 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 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. 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 has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

10. Hon'ble Apex Court, in the case of Lily Thomas v. Union of India, AIR 2000 SC 1650, after considering the dictionary meaning of word "review" has taken the view that power of review can be exercised for correction of mistake and not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute, dealing with exercise of power; the review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise, and mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground of Review.

11. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Subhash Vs. State of Maharastra & another, AIR 2002 SC 2537, the Apex Court emphasized that Court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertain the review application unless there are circumstances falling within the prescribed limits for that as the Courts and Tribunal should not proceed to re-examine the matter as if it was an original application before it for the reason that it cannot be a scope of review. In State Haryana v. Mohinder Singh, JT 2002 (1) 197, the Apex Court disapproved the judgment of High Court,wherein earlier writ petition was disposed of by High Court being infructuous and giving some directions, and subsequent to the same, Review was sought, which was allowed, same was clearly termed to be overstepping of jurisdiction, and amounting to giving of one more chance of hearing.

12. In the case of Union of India v. B. Valluvar, 2006 (8) SCC 686, Hon'ble Apex Court has again considered the parameters of review jurisdiction of High Court, that same shall be exercised within the limitations as provided under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule of C.P.C.,and without recording finding as to there existed error apparent on the face of the record, merit cannot be gone into.

13. In the case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & another, AIR 1977 All. 163, this Court rejected the review application filed on a ground which had not been argued earlier because the counsel, at initial stage, had committed mistake in not relying on and arguing those points, held as under:-

"It is not possible to review a judgment only to give the petitioner a fresh inning. It is not for the litigant to judge of counsel's wisdom after the case has been decided. It is for the counsel to argue the case in the manner he thinks it should be argued. Once the case has been finally argued on merit and decided on merit, no application for review lies on the ground that the case should have been differently argued."

14. On the touchstone of the dictum noted above, the review is permissible only when there is error apparent on the face of record i. e. error should be grave and palpable, and the error must be such as would be apparent on mere looking of record, without requiring any long drawn process of reasoning, and reappraisal of entire evidence for finding the error, as same would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Further, the review lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 141 CPC. The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other " sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in the said provision of C.P.C.

15. There appears no apparent mistake in the judgment under review. Neither review court can examine the merit of the judgment as an appellate court nor in the garb of review petition, re-hearing of the matter can be permitted by this Court.

16. Consequently, in the facts of the case the review application has no merit and the same is dismissed, accordingly.

Order Date :- 4.8.2023

RKP