Allahabad High Court
Feram Singh And 5 Others vs State Of U.P. And 5 Others on 12 October, 2023
Bench: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC:197153
Court No. - 48
Case :- CIVIL MISC REVIEW APPLICATION No. - 422 of 2023
Applicant :- Feram Singh And 5 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 5 Others
Counsel for Applicant :- Deepak Gaur,Sarvesh Kumar Pandey
Counsel for Opposite Party :- C.S.C.,Prabal Kumar Dixit
Hon'ble Saurabh Shyam Shamshery,J.
1. This is an application to review the order dated 03.08.2023 passed by this Court on merit dismissing Writ-B No. 2719 of 2023.
2. Sri S.K. Pandey, learned counsel for review-applicants has submitted that there was a legal error committed in the order under review as well as there was a document, i.e., an order passed on 29.11.1997 which was not produced before this Court during hearing despite due diligent and he referred Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. that review could be made on a discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within knowledge of review-applicants. However, it is not the case of review-applicants that said document was not in their knowledge. Therefore, it was not a case that after judgment passed by this Court under review the review-applicants came to know about said order.
3. Supreme Court in S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan and others, 2023 SCC Online SC 185 has dealt with issue of review and held that exercise of power of review have to be undertaken within a very limited scope and for that the provisions of Order 41 Rule 1 C.P.C. has to be complied with. Relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced hereinafter:
"15. While considering the aforesaid issue two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to be referred to? In the case of Perry Kansagra (supra) this Court has observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is observed that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It is further observed that review is not appeal in disguise. It is observed that 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. It is further observed that it is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy has been finally decided. After considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under:
?(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 fact 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 by two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.
(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.?
16. It is further observed in the said decision that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record.
17. In the case of Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. (supra), it is observed and held that scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It is further observed that 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." (Emphasis supplied)
4. In the present case, it is the case of review-applicants that said document despite being in knowledge was not brought on record as well as in the grab of a review application, this Court could not renew an order passed on merit. Power of review could not be exercised on the ground that the order under review was erroneous on merit. The counsel for review-applicants has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of record. Therefore, the review application on the basis of grounds raised, has no force.
5. Dismissed accordingly.
Order Date :- 12.10.2023
AK
