Ashin Mohammad vs The General Manager
2025 Latest Caselaw 2664 Jhar

Jharkhand High Court

Ashin Mohammad vs The General Manager on 14 February, 2025

Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
                               ----

Civil Review No.72 of 2023

----

Ashin Mohammad, aged about 40 years, son of Late Noor Mohammad, Resident of West Madudih Colliery, PO - Sijua, PS -

      Tetulmari, District - Dhanbad                          ..... Petitioner
                                  --          Versus   --

1. The General Manager, Katras Area/ West Jharia Area, M/s. BCCL, PO and PS - Kathara, District - Dhabad, Jharkhand

2. The Chief Manager (P), Katras Area/West Jharia Area, M/s. BCCL, PO and PS - Kathara, District - Dhabad, Jharkhand

3. Project Officer, Munidih Colliery, Katras Area/West Jharia Area, M/s. BCCL, PO and PS - Kathara, District - Dhabad, Jharkhand ...... Opposite Parties

----

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI

---

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Lukesh Kumar, Advocate For the BCCL :- Mr. Amit Kumar Das, Advocate

----

4/14.02.2025 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and

learned counsel appearing for the opposite parties.

2. This Civil Review application has been filed for

reviewing the judgment dated 01.12.2020 passed in W.P. (S.)

No.3532 of 2019 whereby the said writ petition has been dismissed.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits

that against the writ court's order the petitioner herein has

preferred the LPA and the LPA was withdrawn with liberty to seek

remedy by filing review or any another remedy permissible under

law and pursuant to that the review petition has been filed. He

--1-- Civil Review No.72 of 2023 further submits that all the points have not been raised in the writ

petition and in view of that he may kindly be allowed to argue the

review on merit.

4. Mr. Lukesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner submits that the writ court's order may kindly be

reviewed.

5. Mr. Das, submits that there is no apparent error in the order

of the writ court. He further submits that no ground has been taken

in the writ petition and only ground is taken that the criminal case

is pending in the CBI Court. He submits that it is well settled that a

new ground cannot be taken by way of filing the review petition

and review can be made, if there is apparent error on the face of

the record.

6. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the BCCL relied in the

case of Perry Kansagra versus Smriti Madan Kansagra

reported in (2019) 20 SCC 753 wherein at paragraph No.15, it

has been held as under :-

15. As regards the first issue, relying on the decisions of this Court in Inderchand Jain (dead) through Lrs. vs. Motilal (dead) through Lrs. 2, Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and others 3 and Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and others4, it was submitted by the appellant that the exercise of review jurisdiction was not warranted at all.

15.1 In Inderchand Jain8 it was observed in paras 10, 11 and 33 are as under:-

--2-- Civil Review No.72 of 2023 "10. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for reviewing any order.

11. Review is not appeal in disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India5 this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para

"56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise."

33. The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction of the court, which is as under:

"The law on the subject--exercise of power of review, as propounded by the Apex Court and various other High Courts may be summarised as hereunder:

(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found.

But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the (2000) 6 SCC 224 Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits.

(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate.

--3-- Civil Review No.72 of 2023

(v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit."

In our opinion, the principles of law enumerated by it, in the facts of this case, have wrongly been applied. 15.2 In Ajit Kumar Rath9, it was observed:-

"29. In review proceedings, the Tribunal deviated from the principles laid down above which, we must say, is wholly unjustified and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy had been finally decided. This, we are constrained to say, is not the scope of review under Section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985............"

15.3 Similarly, in Parsion Devi10 the principles were summarized as under:

"9. 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 Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra 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".

7. In view of the above it is well settled that the reviewing court

does not sit in appeal over it's own order and only the apparent

error can be looked into.

8. Further reference may be made to the case of Shanti

Conductors Private Limited versus Assam State Electricity

Board and Others reported in (2020) 2 SCC 677 wherein at

paragraph No.25, it has been held as under :-

--4-- Civil Review No.72 of 2023

25. Insofar as other submissions of Dr. Singhvi that Act, 1993 is retroactive in nature and further amount due at the time of the commencement of the Act ought to attract interest of the Act, 1993, all these submissions have been elaborately considered in the judgment dated 23.01.2019, which have been considered on merits. The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already ben addressed and decided. The scope of review has been reiterated by this Court from time to time. It is sufficient to refer the judgment of this Court in Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 715, wherein in paragraph 9 following has been laid down:-

"9. 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"."

9. The Court has again looked into the averments made in the

writ petition and finds that in all paragraphs the facts have been

stated and the ground has been taken that the criminal case is still

sub-judice and in view of that nothing new further has been

disclosed before this Court and bald statement is made in

paragraph No.20 saying that the dismissal order is without any

proper reason.

10. Looking into the order of the dismissal annexed with the writ

--5-- Civil Review No.72 of 2023 petition, a reasoned order has been passed even the second show

cause was issued and considering all this the dismissal order was

passed which was affirmed by the appellate authority by the order

dated 11.05.2019 and the appellate authority has further given the

reason of dismissal of the appeal.

11. Thus, apart from bald statement made in paragraph No.20

nothing further new has been argued before this Court and in light

of submission the writ court has passed the said order and the

review petition can be maintained only if the apparent error on the

face of the record is found.

12. No case of review is made out, as such this petition is

dismissed.

13. Pending petition, if any, is also disposed of.

                                       (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)

Sangam/




                               --6--                      Civil Review No.72 of 2023