Bombay High Court
Union Of India, Through ... vs Col. Ivan Singh S/O Late Shri ... on 14 July, 2022
Bench: S.B. Shukre, Avinash G. Gharote
MCA 330 of 2021.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR
MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW PETITION) NO.330/2021
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.2113/2020 (D) WITH
WRIT PETITION NO.1796/2020 (D) WITH
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.289/2020 (D)
PETITIONERS : 1. Union of India,
(Ori.Respondents) Through Secretary Ministry of Defence,
Government of India South Block,
Parliament Street, New Delhi - 110011.
2. The Chief of Army Staff,
Integrated HQ of Ministry of Defence,
(Army) South Bock, Parliament Street,
DHQ Post Office, New Delhi - 110011.
3. Director General of Territorial Army,
Territorial Army Directorate, Integrated,
HQ of MOD (Army) "L" Block, Church
Road, New Delhi - 110001.
4. General Office Commanding in Chief,
(COC-in-C) Head Quarters Eastern
Command Fort Williams, Kolkatta.
5. General Officer Commanding in Chief
(COC-C) Headquarters, Southern
Command, Pune.
...VERSUS...
RESPONDENT : Col. Ivan Singh S/o Late Shri Kanwar
(Ori.Petitioner) Shamsher Singh, aged about 56 years
r/o Plot No.20, Manav Seva Nagar, Seminary
Hills, Nagpur through Arnold Singh
S/o Col. Ivan Singh, aged about 25 years,
MCA 330 of 2021.odt
2
r/o Plot No.20 Manav Seva Nagar,
Seminary Hills, Nagpur - 440006.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Shri Nandesh Deshpande, Assistant Solicitor General of India (ASGI for
petitioners/applicants
Shri Subodh Dharmadhikari, Senior Counsel assisted by Shri Akshay Sudame,
Advocate for respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CORAM : SUNIL B. SHUKRE AND
AVINASH G. GHAROTE, JJ.
Order reserved on : 08/07/2022
Order pronounced on : 14/07/2022
ORDER (PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)
1. The present application seeks a review of the judgment
dated 07/05/2021. The parameters of review have been spelt out by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. Smt. Nirmala
Kumari Choudhury (1995) 1 SCC 170 as under :
"8. It is well settled that the 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. In connection
with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order
47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available
to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the
case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma
[(1979) 4 SCC 389 : AIR 1979 SC 1047], speaking through
MCA 330 of 2021.odt
Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent
observations: (SCC p. 390, para 3)
"It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo
Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909],
there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution
to preclude the 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. But, there are definitive limits to
the exercise of the power of review. The power of
review may be exercised on the discovery of new
and important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence was not within the
knowledge of the person seeking the review or
could not be produced by him at the time when
the order was made; it may be exercised where
some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record is found; it may also be exercised on any
analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on
the ground that the decision was erroneous on
merits. That would be the province of a court of
appeal. A power of review is not to be confused
with appellate power which may enable an
appellate court to correct all manner of errors
committed by the subordinate court."
9. Now it is also to be kept in view that in the impugned
judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly
observed that they were entertaining the review petition
only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the
record and not on any other ground. So far as that aspect is
concerned, it has to be kept in view that an error apparent
on the face of record must be such an error which must
strike one on mere looking at the record and would not
MCA 330 of 2021.odt
require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points
where there may conceivably be two opinions. We may
usefully refer to the observations of this Court in the case
of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun
Bhavanappa Tirumale [AIR 1960 SC 137 : (1960) 1 SCR
890] wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the 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 Haridas Das Vs. Usha Rani Banik (Smt) and others,
(2006) 4 SCC 78, considering Meera Bhanja (supra), it has been held
as under as under :
"13. In order to appreciate the scope of a review, Section 114
CPC has to be read, but this section does not even adumbrate
the ambit of interference expected of the court since it merely
states that it "may make such order thereon as it thinks fit".
The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for the
purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a
rehearing "on account of some mistake or error apparent on
MCA 330 of 2021.odt
the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason". The
former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to
the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is
manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not
possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute
because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the
case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/
or cited binding precedents to the court and thereby enjoyed
a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the
Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47 which states that the fact
that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment
of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the
subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case,
shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Where
the order in question is appealable the aggrieved party has
adequate and efficacious remedy and the court should
exercise the power to review its order with the greatest
circumspection. This Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd.
v. Govt. of A.P. [(1964) 5 SCR 174 : AIR 1964 SC 1372] held
as follows: (SCR p. 186)
"[T]here is a distinction which is real, though it might not
always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous
decision and a decision which could be characterised as
vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an
appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard
and corrected, but lies only for patent error. ... where
without any elaborate argument one could point to the error
and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in
the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions
entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the
face of the record would be made out."
14. --------
MCA 330 of 2021.odt
15. A perusal of Order 47 Rule 1 shows that review of a
judgment or an order could be sought: (a) from the
discovery of new and important matters or evidence which
after the exercise of due diligence was not within the
knowledge of the applicant; (b) such important matter or
evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time
when the decree was passed or order made; and (c) on
account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record or any other sufficient reason."
2. Thus, from the above, the following can be culled out:
(a) 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 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(b) The power of review can be exercised :
(i) on the discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence was not within the knowledge of the
person seeking the review or could not be
produced by him at the time when the order was
made;
(ii) where some mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record is found, which mistake or
error has to be self evident and must be such an
error which must strike one on mere looking at
the record. That is to say where without any
MCA 330 of 2021.odt
elaborate argument one could point to the error
and say here is a substantial point of law which
stares one in the face, and there could
reasonably be no two opinions entertained about
it. 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; and
(iii) on any analogous ground.
But :
(c) It may not be exercised on the ground that the decision
was erroneous on merits as a review is not an appeal in
disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and
corrected, but lies only for patent error . That would be the
province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be
confused with appellate power which may enable an
appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by
the subordinate court.
(d) It does not postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a
party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could
perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited
MCA 330 of 2021.odt
binding precedents to the court and thereby enjoyed a
favourable verdict.
(e) The fact that the decision on a question of law on which
the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or
modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in
any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such
judgment.
(f) Where the order in question is appealable the aggrieved
party has adequate and efficacious remedy and the court
should exercise the power to review its order with the
greatest circumspection.
It would thus be apparent that unless a plea seeking
review falls within the above parameters, a review shall not lie.
3. The present application for review has to be considered
in light of the above parameters.
4. A bare perusal of the application seeking review would
make it apparent that what is being sought is not a review but a
rehearing for the reason that grounds are raised stating how the
observations of this Court were incorrect, which cannot be grounds
MCA 330 of 2021.odt
for review but grounds for appeal. On this ground itself the
application needs to be rejected.
5. Shri Nandesh Deshpande, learned ASGI however urges
that the ground raised in para 19 of the application is a ground on
which the judgment can be reviewed. We, therefore, asked him to
point out to us the power of review vested in the Competent
Authority, in the Army Act, 1950, to which he fairly concedes that
neither the Army Act, 1950 nor the Rules framed thereunder confer
any power of review upon the Competent Authority in respect of a
power exercised under Rule 14 or 15 of the Army Rules, 1954.
6. We also enquired from the learned ASGI as to whether
there was any material which would demonstrate the existence of
any changed circumstances as was the plea raised in para 19 of the
application, other than what was considered earlier, or any new
material for that matter, or any material already in existence which
was not considered, to which he states that the changed
circumstances plea raised now is in respect of material which was
already considered while exercising the power under Rule 14 of the
MCA 330 of 2021.odt
Army Rules. This being the admitted position, we do not see that any
ground for review on this count is made out.
7. No other point is urged. The misc. civil application is
therefore without any merit and is accordingly rejected. No order as
to costs.
(AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.) (SUNIL B. SHUKRE, J.)
Wadkar
Digitally signed bySHAILENDRA
SUKHADEORAO WADKAR
Signing Date:14.07.2022 19:21
