Delhi High Court
Malkeet Singh & Ors. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 11 September, 2015
Author: Pradeep Nandrajog
$~7
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision : September 11, 2015
+ LPA 653/2012
MALKEET SINGH & ORS ..... Appellant
Represented by: Ms.Rekha Palli, Sr.Advocate
instructed by Ms.Saahila Lamba,
Advocate
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ORS ..... Respondents
Represented by: Ms.Anjana Gosain, advocate with
Mr.Vishu Agarwal, Advocate for R-1
Ms.Pooja Dhar, Advocate for review
petitioner in R.P.No.427/2015
Mr.Digvijay Rai, Advocate for R-2
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP NANDRAJOG
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MUKTA GUPTA
PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J. (Oral)
CM No.19111/2015
Allowed subject to just exceptions.
R.P.No.427/2015
1. By present application under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, respondent
No.26 (in the Letters Patent Appeal) seeks review of the judgment and order
dated August 31, 2015 whereby Letters Patent Appeal No.653/2012 was
allowed; judgment dated July 17, 2012 passed by the Single Judge was set
aside and writ petition filed by respondents Nos.3 to 54 before Single Judge
was dismissed.
2. The scope of Order XLVII dealing with review of a judgment has
been succinctly stated by a Division Bench of this Court in Review
Application No.242/2004 titled as Smt.Sarla Jain vs. Union of India decided
on July 07, 2005 in the following terms:-
"4. Reference in this regard can be made to a recent judgment
of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Jain and Anr. v. Union
of India, in CM No. 4274 in WP(C) No. 1246/1990 decided on
5th May, 2005 where the Court held as under:-
"The scope of the review jurisdiction of the Court
is a very limited one. The applicant cannot pray
for review of a judgment merely because some of
the judgments have not been noticed by the Court
particularly when the judgments were not even
referred to before the Court at that stage and in
any case the applicant will be in no position to
say so. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of review
does not extend for substituting a view taken by
the Court on merits or otherwise of the
contentions raised before the Court on the facts
and circumstances of a case. The applicant is
essentially praying before the Court that the view
taken by the Court on different facets of the case -
legal and factual - should be substituted primarily
because another view was possible. The power to
review normally is the creation of a statute.
However, in exercise of powers by the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the
Court can take recourse to the power of review by
necessary implication. Such power of review has
a limited scope and is normally used for the
correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view
in law. Such mistake or error contemplated under
this rule must be such which is apparent on the
face of the record and not a correction of an error
which requires long drawn process of reasoning.
The limitation on the powers of the Court under
Order 47 Rule 1 are similar and applicable to the
jurisdiction available to the High Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
With caution the Court has to ensure that such
power is not exercised like entertaining an
'Appeal in disguise'. Where conceivably there may
be two opinions and an error has to be
established by a long drawn process it is not an
error apparent on the face of the record.
Reference in this regard can be made to the
judgment in the case of R.S. Rajanna v. Sri
Basavaiah and Ors., AIR 1997 Karnataka 245
Para 11 and in the case of Prem Dutt v. Punjab
State, 1998 Vol. 1 PLR 444."
3. In the decision reported as JT 1997 (8) SC 480 Parsion Devi & Ors.
Vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors. the Supreme Court has held as under :-
"It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly
confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review
inter alia if there is a 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 CPC. 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, it must be remembered has a
limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in
disguise".
4. An error which is not self evident and has to be dictated by a process
of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the
record.
5. This principle was reiterated by the Supreme Court in the decision
reported as JT 2000 (5) SCC 617 Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India & Ors.
with a clear caution that in exercise of power of review the Court may
correct the mistake but not to substitute the view. The mere possibility of
two views on the subject, is not a ground for review.
6. Having gone through the present review application, we find that „no
error apparent on face of record‟ has been brought out by review applicant
warranting review of judgment dated August 31, 2015. A perusal of the
review application goes to show that the same i.e. review application is
nothing but „an appeal in disguise‟.
7. During course of arguments, learned counsel for review applicant
essentially contended that the conclusion drawn by us in paragraph 74 of the
judgment dated August 31, 2015 that respondents Nos.3 to 54 were aware of
the pay-scales attached to the post of Manager (ATC) (the post to which
respondents Nos.3 to 54 were seeking appointment in the writ petition filed
by them before Single Judge) is erroneous. As held in Sarla Devi Jain's case
(supra), in exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC it is
not permissible for an erroneous decision to be „reheard and corrected‟.
8. In view of above discussion, the present review application is
dismissed.
9. We notice that a typographical error has inadvertently occurred in
judgment and order dated August 31, 2015, in that, it has been noted in
paragraph 74 of the judgment and order that the letter offering appointment
to respondents Nos.3 to 54 has been noted in paragraph 24 of judgment,
whereas the same has been noted in paragraph 26. In view thereof, we direct
that expression „paragraph 24‟ occurring in paragraph 74 of judgment dated
August 31, 2015 be read as „paragraph 26‟.
CM No.19110/2015
Dismissed as infructuous.
(PRADEEP NANDRAJOG)
JUDGE
(MUKTA GUPTA)
JUDGE
SEPTEMBER 11, 2015
mamta
