M/S Micro Inks Limited vs State Of Gujarat
2021 Latest Caselaw 12604 Guj

     C/SCA/8571/2021                                 IA ORDER DATED: 26/08/2021




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD


            MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 1 of 2021
              In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8571 of 2021
                                   With
            MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 1 of 2021
              In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8607 of 2021
                                   With
            MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 1 of 2021
              In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8947 of 2021
==========================================================

M/S MICRO INKS LIMITED Versus STATE OF GUJARAT ========================================================== Appearance:

MR D K TRIVEDI for the PETITIONER(s) No. MR. Trupesh Kathiriya AGP for the RESPONDENT(s) No. ==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI and HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE ASHOKKUMAR C. JOSHI

Date : 26/08/2021

IA ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE BELA M. TRIVEDI)

1. The present applications have been filed seeking to review the common order dated 14.07.2021, passed in the aforesaid Special Civil Applications.

2. It is sought to be submitted by learned Advocate Mr. D.K.Trivedi for the Applicant - Petitioner that there are some factual errors contained in the order dated 14.7.2021 which are required to be corrected.

3. In this regard, it may be noted that the Court, while disposing of all the three petitions by a common order dated

C/SCA/8571/2021 IA ORDER DATED: 26/08/2021

14.07.2021, had taken into consideration the facts of Special Civil Application No. 8571 of 2021 for the sake of convenience. The Court as such does not find any error apparent on the face of record. Even otherwise, the scope of review being very limited, the Court is not inclined to entertain the application any further.

4. In this regard, a beneficial reference of the decision of the Supreme Court in case of Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 be made. It has been observed therein that -

"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". There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise"."

5. In that view of the matter, all the three applications are dismissed.

(BELA M. TRIVEDI, J)

(A. C. JOSHI,J) J.N.W