Eic Holdings Limited vs Union Of India
2022 Latest Caselaw 1668 Cal/2

                                     1




OD-1
                             IA/GA/1/2015
                          (OLD GA/1455/2015)
                            RVWO/10/2015
                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                             ORIGINAL SIDE
                                  ----

EIC HOLDINGS LIMITED VS UNION OF INDIA

------

BEFORE:

The Hon'ble JUSTICE ARIJIT BANERJEE The Hon'ble JUSTICE SUBHENDU SAMANTA Date : 8th June 2022.

Appearance:

Mr. Nand Lal Singhania, Advocate Mr. Santosh Kumar Pandey, Advocate ...for applicant / Union of India

Mr. Sabyasachi Chowdhury, Advocate Ms. Vineeta Meharia, Advocate Mr. Amit Meharia, Advocate Ms. Madhurima Halder, Advocate Ms. Paramita Banerjee, Advocate Ms. Subika Paul, Advocate ...for respondent / appellant

THE COURT:- Sufficient causes having been shown, the delay in

filing the review application is condoned.

The Union of India was a tenant under EIC Holdings Limited (now

known as 'EIC Holdings Private Limited'). EIC Holdings filed a suit for

eviction against Union of India. The suit was decreed by a Learned

Single Judge of this Court. Possession has been handed over to the

landlord. A special referee had been appointed for ascertaining the rate

of mesne profits. The special referee filed a report after considering

expert evidence. The Learned Single Judge modified such report and

reduced the rate of mesne profits.

The landlord preferred an appeal. By an order dated October 31,

2014, a coordinate Bench set aside the Learned Single Judge's judgment

and decree to the extent the same modified the special referee's report.

The report of the special referee was accepted and the Division Bench

passed a decree in terms thereof.

This application has been filed by the Union of India for review of

the said order dated October 31, 2014. Appearing in support of the

application, Mr. Singhania, learned advocate argues that the special

referee in the report awarded interest @ 6% under Section 34 of the Code

of Civil Procedure. This he did not have the power to do. Hence, the

review petitioner is aggrieved only to the extent the special referee's

report awarded interest and the same was accepted by the Division

Bench by the order under review.

We are not sitting in appeal over the order dated October 31, 2014.

Indeed, we cannot. There does not appear to be any error apparent on

the face of the records. There is no apparent illegality in the order under

review. If the review petitioner contends that the Division Bench erred in

accepting the special referee's report since the referee did not have the

power to award interest, then the remedy of the review petitioner would

be to approach the higher forum for correction of such error. No ground

for reviewing the order dated October 31, 2014 has been made out.

Accordingly, RVWO/10/2015 and IA GA/1/2015 (Old

GA/1455/2015) are dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.

(ARIJIT BANERJEE, J)

(SUBHENDU SAMANTA, J.)

s.kumar