Karnataka High Court

Kvn Property Holdings vs The State Of Karnataka on 6 January, 2023

Bench: M.Nagaprasanna

                            1



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 06TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2023

                           BEFORE

          THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA

               REVIEW PETITION NO.832 OF 2022
                              IN
           WRIT PETITION No.1883 OF 2020 (GM-KIADB)


BETWEEN:

KVN PROPERTY HOLDINGS
#2011, EMBASSY HABITAT,
PALACE CROSS ROAD,
VASANTHNAGAR,
BENGALURU - 560 052.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
MANAGING PARTNER.
                                              ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. BASAVAPRABHU S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE
    A/W SRI KASHINATH J.D., ADVOCATE)

AND:

1.     THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
       BY ITS SECRETARY,
       DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
       AND INDUSTRIES
       VIDHANA SOUDHA
       BENGALURU - 01.

2.     THE KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA
       DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
       BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
                               2



     OFFICER AND EXECUTIVE MEMBER
     4TH & 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING,
     KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 01.

3.   THE SECRETARY - I
     KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREAS
     DEVELOPMENT BOARD,
     4TH & 5TH FLOOR, EAST WING,
     KHANIJA BHAVAN, RACE COURSE ROAD,
     BENGALURU - 01.
                                                 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI M.VINOD KUMAR, AGA FOR R1;
    SRI VIJAY KUMAR A. PARIL, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 READ WITH ARTICLE
226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE FILE IN WP NO.1883/2020(GM-
KIADB) AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 09/11/2022 PASSED IN
THE MATTER AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION
AFTER REHEARING THE MATTER AND ETC.,

     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 04.01.2023 COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
                             ORDER

The petitioner in this petition seeks review of the order dated

09.11.2022 passed in W.P.No.1883 of 2020.

2. Heard Sri.Basavaprabhu.S.Patil, learned senior counsel

along with Sri Kashinath.J.D., learned counsel for petitioner,

Sri.M.Vinod Kumar, learned Additional Government Advocate for

respondent No.1 and Sri.Vijay Kumar.A.Patil, learned counsel for

respondent Nos.2 and 3.

3. The petitioner had knocked at the doors of this Court in

Writ Petition No.1883 of 2020 seeking a direction by issuance of a

writ in the nature of mandamus directing the 2nd

respondent/Karnataka industrial Area Development Board ("the

Board" for short) to issue a letter of allotment in his favour in

respect of plot No.R-12 measuring 25 acres in the Housing Area of

Hi-tech Defense and Aerospace Park, Bengaluru as per Government

Order dated 04.09.2018. The matter was heard, reserved and

disposed in terms of the order dated 09.11.2022, after which, the

matter was moved seeking a review on the ground that there was

grave urgency in the matter, as property was sought to be allotted

to a third party. It is in that light the petition was entertained at

the first instance and an interim order of stay on 07.12.2022 was

granted. Thereafter, the matter was directed to be listed on

04.01.2023 and the matter is heard.

4. Learned senior counsel Sri.Basavaprabhu.S.Patil,

representing the petitioner would contend that there is error

apparent on the face of the record for seeking a review of the order

on the ground that the allotment of the petitioner had to be made

by the Board as there was no option left to it once the committee

constituted under the Karnataka Industries (Facilitation) Act, 2002

approves the same.

5. The primary contention was that the objections filed by the

Board with particular reference to paragraph No.10 which is quoted

in paragraph 13 of the order runs counter to the provisions of the

Act. It is his contention that the right had got crystallized when he

approached the Court on 20.01.2020 seeking a mandamus at the

hands of this Court.

6. The above submissions were considered at the time when

the writ petition was heard and disposed. The protection that was

granted at the first blush by grant of an interim order was on

account of the submission made that the Board in a hurried manner

is now wanting to allot the property to the third party. Except that

subsequent event, any other submissions which are now made, if

considered, would amount to a complete re-hearing of the matter.

7. A review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC would not mean

that the matter can be re-agued all over again, which would

amount to sitting in appeal over the judgment already rendered,

unless there is error apparent on the face of the record, which I do

not find any. If the review is now entertained, it would run foul of

the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAMLESH VERMA

VS. MAYAWATI1 wherein the Apex Court has held as follows:

"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.

(2013)8 SCC 320

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:

(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)

The said judgment of Apex Court in the case of KAMLESH VERMA

(supra) is followed in a subsequent judgment rendered by a Three

Judge Bench in the case of S.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY VS.

V.NARAYANA REDDY2 wherein the Apex Court has held as

follows:

".... .... ....

17. The grounds available for filing a review application against a judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in the following words:

"1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved -

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or Order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.

1[Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]"

18. A glance at the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that a review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason.

19. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India10, this Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under:

"12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib11 this Court observed:

'A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. ... The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.'"

(emphasis added)

20. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi12, stating that an error that is not self-evident and the one thathas to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review, this Court held as under:

"7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P.13 this Court opined:

'11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'. The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in

disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.'

8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury14 while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma15 this Court once again held that 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.

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 this 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'".

[emphasis added]

21. The error referred to under the Rule, must be apparent on the face of the record and not one which has to be searched out. While discussing the scope and ambit of Article 137 that empowers the Supreme Court to review its judgments and in the course of discussing the contours of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC in Lily Thomas (supra), this Court held as under:

"54. Article 137 empowers this court to review its judgments subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145 of the Constitution. The Supreme Court Rules made in exercise of the powers under Article 145 of the Constitution prescribe that in civil cases, review lies on any of the grounds specified in Order 47 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which provides:

"1. Application for review of judgment - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved -

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.'

Under Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules no review lies except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record in criminal cases. Order XL Rule 5 of the Supreme Court Rules provides that after an application for review has been disposed of no further application shall be entertained in the same matter.

XXXXXXXXX

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. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review. Once a review petition is dismissed no further petition of review can be entertained. The rule of law of following the practice of the binding nature of the larger Benches and not taking different views by the Benches of coordinated jurisdiction of equal

strength has to be followed and practised. However, this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 136 or Article 32 of the Constitution and upon satisfaction that the earlier judgments have resulted in deprivation of fundamental rights of a citizen or rights created under any other statute, can take a different view notwithstanding the earlier judgment.

XXXXXXXXX

58. Otherwise also no ground as envisaged under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been pleaded in the review petition or canvassed before us during the arguments for the purposes of reviewing the judgment in Sarla Mudgal case16. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have discovered any new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence was not within their knowledge or could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of passing of the judgment. All pleas raised before us were in fact addressed for and on behalf of the petitioners before the Bench which, after considering those pleas, passed the judgment in Sarla Mudgal16 case. We have also not found any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record requiring a review. Error contemplated under the rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. No such error has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the parties seeking review of the judgment. The only arguments advanced were that the judgment interpreting Section 494 amounted to violation of some of the fundamental rights. No other sufficient cause has been shown for reviewing the judgment. The words "any-other sufficient reason appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC" must mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule" as was held in Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram17 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius18. Error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa19 this Court held that such error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad20, it was held:

"It is essential that it should be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. The real difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the statement of the principle as in its application to the facts of a particular case. When does an error, cease to be mere error and become an error apparent on the face of the record? Learned Counsel on either side were unable to suggest any clear-cut rule by which the boundary between the two classes of errors could be demarcated.

Mr. Pathak for the first respondent contended on the strength of certain observations of Chagla, CJ in - 'Batuk K Vyas v. Surat Borough Municipality'21, that no error could be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it was not self-evident and if it required an examination or argument to establish it. This test might afford a satisfactory basis for decision in the majority of cases. But there must be cases in which even this test might break down, because judicial opinions also differ, and an error that might be considered by one Judge as self-evident might not be so considered by another. The fact is that what is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case.

Therefore, it can safely be held that the petitioners have not made out any case within the meaning of Article 137 read with Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the judgment in Sarla Mudgal case16. The petition is misconceived and bereft of any substance."

(emphasis added)

22. It is also settled law that in exercise of review jurisdiction, the Court cannot reappreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are possible in a matter. In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd.22, this Court observed as follows:

"10. ....In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise."

(emphasis added)

23. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate Court. This point has been elucidated in Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd.23 where it was held thus:

"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 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.

12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the nature of 'second innings' which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted."

(emphasis added)

24. After discussing a series of decisions on review jurisdiction in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati24, this Court observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. As long as the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarized in the captioned case as below:

"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" has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki17, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius18 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.25,.

20.2. 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 re-heard 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."

25. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma15, this Court was examining an order passed by the Judicial Commissioner who was reviewing an earlier judgment that went in favour of the appellant, while deciding a review application filed by the respondents therein who took a ground that the predecessor Court had overlooked two important documents that showed that the respondents were in possession of the sites through which the appellant had sought easementary rights to access his home-stead. The said appeal was allowed by this Court with the following observations:

"3 ...It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab26 there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and pulpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."

(emphasis added)

26. In State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta27, this Court emphasized the requirement of the review petitioner who approaches a Court on the ground of discovery of a new matter or evidence, to demonstrate that the same was not within his knowledge and held thus:

"21. At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new

matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court earlier."

(emphasis added)

27. In the captioned judgment, the term 'mistake or error apparent' has been discussed in the following words:

"22. The term 'mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision".

(emphasis added)

28. In S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka28, this Court explained as to when a review jurisdiction could be treated as statutory or inherent and held thus:

"18. Justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers. Neither the rules of procedure nor technicalities of law can

stand in its way. The order of the court should not be prejudicial to anyone. Rule of stare decisis is adhered for consistency but it is not as inflexible in Administrative Law as in Public Law. Even the law bends before justice. Entire concept of writ jurisdiction exercised by the higher courts is founded on equity and fairness. If the court finds that the order was passed under a mistake and it would not have exercised the jurisdiction but for the erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in miscarriage of justice then it cannot on any principle be precluded from rectifying the error. Mistake is accepted as valid reason to recall an order. Difference lies in the nature of mistake and scope of rectification, depending on if it is of fact or law. But the root from which the power flows is the anxiety to avoid injustice. It is either statutory or inherent. The latter is available where the mistake is of the Court".

(emphasis added)

29. In Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Shri Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji29, this Court held as follows:

"4..... It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order......."

(emphasis added)

30. In Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs v. Vinod Kumar

Rawat , citing previous decisions and expounding on the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1, this Court has observed that Section 114 CPC does not lay any conditions precedent for exercising the power of review; and nor does the Section prohibit the Court from exercising its power to review a decision. However, an order can be reviewed by the Court only on the grounds prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The said power cannot be exercised as an inherent power and

nor can appellate power be exercised in the guise of exercising the power of review.

31. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule" (Refer : Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram17 and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius18)."

Therefore, entertaining the subject review would run counter

to the afore-quoted judgments.

8. Insofar as the reliance placed by the learned senior

counsel for the petitioner upon the judgment of the Apex Court in

the case of STATE OF WEST BENGAL V. KAMAL SENGUPTA

reported in (2008)8 SCC 612 is concerned, the same need not

detain this Court for any consideration as the said judgment is

considered in the case of S.MADHUSUDHAN REDDY (supra) and

is then held that review would not be maintainable under certain

circumstances.

9. As observed hereinabove, review would not be

maintainable, if it is a repetition of old arguments, which would