$~48
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 28.03.2025
+ RC.REV. 325/2023
CHAMAN LAL .....Petitioner
Through: Ms. Sopna Rani Padhy, Adv. with
Petitioner in-person
versus
MANISH KUMAR & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Kanwal Chaudhary, Mr. Ankit
Kumar, Advs. for R-1
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J.: (Oral)
1. The present Review Petition has been filed by Respondent No.1
seeking review of order dated 04.02.2025 passed by this Court.
2. It is the case of the learned Counsel for the Review
Petitioner/Respondent No.1 that the Respondent No.1 did not take any
adjournment and thus the order dated 04.02.2025 which sets out that the
adjournment was taken by Respondent No.1 has an apparent error and
should be reviewed.
3. The record reflects that on 23.07.2024, the Registry was directed to
supply e-copy of the Trial Court record (TCR) to Respondent No.1 and the
matter was listed for arguments on 15.10.2024. It is apposite to extract the
relevant part of the order dated 23.07.2024 below:
"3. List on 15.10.2024 for arguments.
4. At the request of counsel for the respondent no. 1, the Registry is
directed to supply e-copy of LCR to him."
[Emphasis supplied]
4. Thereafter, the matter was listed on 15.10.2024. The Respondent No.1
on that day stated that he has not received a copy of the Trial Court record.
Time was also sought to file written submissions/synopsis. The order dated
15.10.2024 is set out below:
"1. The grievance of the Respondent No.1 is that the Registry is not
supplying the copy of the Trial Court Record to him which would enable
him to better prepare with the matter. He submits that despite repeated
requests, the same has not been provided.
2. We fail to understand why the copies of Trial Court Record are not being
provided by the Registry.
2.1 Let parties take their respective fresh Pen drives for the same to the
Registry for this purpose.
3. Written Submissions of the Petitioner are on record.
3.1 The Respondent shall in the meantime comply with order dated
04.12.2023.
4. List on 04.02.2025 at 4PM."
[Emphasis Supplied]
5. The matter was thereafter listed for hearing on 04.02.2025 at a fixed
time. However, on 04.02.2025, the Respondent No.1 made a request for an
adjournment.
6. On 04.12.2023, this Court had crystalised the issues in the present
Petition. Thereafter, on 23.07.2024, a request was made by learned Counsel
for Respondent No.1 pursuant to which a Coordinate Bench of this Court
directed the Registry to supply e-copy of TCR to the Respondent No.1.
Thus, the matter was adjourned at the request of Respondent No.1.
6.1 On 15.10.2024, as well no hearing took place in the matter in view of
the fact that the Review Petitioner/Respondent No.1 had again sought time
to obtain a copy of the Trial Court Record to enable him to better prepare the
matter, as is set out in paragraph 1 of order dated 15.10.2024.
7. Thus, on three dates, 23.07.2024, 15.10.2024 and 04.02.2025, the
matter could not be heard and in view of the orders passed previously, this
Court deemed it apposite to pass the Order dated 04.02.2025.
8. The Supreme Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati1,
has held that the application for review is entertained only under the grounds
mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
including on account of a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the
record. A review proceeding cannot be equated with an original hearing
unless there is a glaring omission or similar grave error which leads to a
miscarriage of justice, the power cannot be exercised. The relevant extract of
the Kamlesh Verma case is reproduced below:
"18. Review is not rehearing of an original matter. The power of review cannot
be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all
errors committed by a subordinate court. A repetition of old and overruled
argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. This Court in
Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. [(2006) 5 SCC 501] , held
as under: (SCC pp. 504-505, paras 11-12)
"11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the
learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the
applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of
arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer
had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert
rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review
cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court
(2013) 8 SCC 320
to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing
of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be
exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in
exceptional cases..."
19. 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 review
jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the
ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and
answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in
the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.
Summary of the principles
20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are
maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or
could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in
Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922
PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos
v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR
520] to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those
specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union
of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT
(2013) 8 SC 275]
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen
concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of
the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on
the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in
miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous
decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground
for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error
which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of
the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review
petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of
arguing the main matter had been negatived."
[Emphasis Supplied]
9. No error has been shown to the Court which would require this Court
to exercise jurisdiction under its powers for review, given the settled law as
discussed above.
10. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no reason to review
the order dated 04.02.2025.
11. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.
12. List before the Roster Bench on 22.04.2025.
13. The parties will act based on the digitally signed copy of the order.
TARA VITASTA GANJU, J
MARCH 28, 2025/jn
Click here to check corrigendum, if any
