Smt. Phulwati Singh vs State Of M.P.
2023 Latest Caselaw 1150 MP

                                                          1
                           IN    THE      HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                               AT JABALPUR
                                                     BEFORE
                                       HON'BLE SMT. JUSTICE NANDITA DUBEY
                                             ON THE 19 th OF JANUARY, 2023
                                           REVIEW PETITION No. 958 of 2022

                          BETWEEN:-
                          SMT. PHULWATI SINGH W/O SHRI GIRVAR SINGH,
                          AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, OCCUPATION: HEAD MASTER
                          AT GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL BARKOTI KALA, P.S. GAUR
                          JHAMAR DISTRICT- SAGAR, M.P. R/O MIF-143, SHANTI
                          VIHAR COLONY, SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                                                                                     .....PETITIONER
                          (BY SHRI HITENDRA GOLHANI - ADVOCATE)

                          AND
                          1.    STATE OF M.P. THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
                                DEPT. OF EDUCATION VALLABH BHAWAN,
                                BHOPAL, (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.    CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZILA PANCHAYAT
                                SAGAR DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.    DISTRICT     EDUCATION    OFFICER, SAGAR
                                DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          4.    SUSHMA KIRKATTA, OCCUPATION: THEN UPPER
                                DIVISION TEACHER, GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL
                                DHANA DISTRICT SAGAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          5.    MATILDA LAKDA OCCUPATION: THEN UPPER
                                DIVISION TEACHER, GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL
                                JAISI NAGAR, DISTRICT SAGAR   (MADHYA
                                PRADESH)

                                                                                  .....RESPONDENTS
                          (BY SHRI D.K. SHUKLA - PANEL LAWYER)

                                This petition coming on for admission this day, th e court passed the
                          following:
Signature Not Verified
                                                           ORDER

Signed by: SMT. GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 1/23/2023 2:56:28 PM

Heard the learned counsel for the parties. This review petition arises out of the order dated 21.07.2022, passed in W.P. No.13825/2007(S), whereby the petition of the petitioner was dismissed.

Review of this order is sought on the ground that the facts mentioned regarding period of service of petitioner at the rural area has not been considered in right perspective.

The review petitioner has not submitted anything on record to suggest that the impugned order suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record. It is well settled that repetition of the same arguments which were urged in the petition and have been rejected is not a sufficient ground to exercise the

power of review.

In the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others (2013) 8 SCC 320 the Apex Court has held that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of 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.

The Apex Court in para 20 of the judgment has culled out the principles on which the review is maintainable :

20(i) 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;

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SMT. GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 1/23/2023 2:56:28 PM

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words any other sufficient reason has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Others (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 Vs Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., JT (2013) 8 SC 275.

20 (ii) The principles on which 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.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SMT. GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 1/23/2023 2:56:28 PM

(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.

The review petitioner has relied on case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V.Narayana Reddy and Others , 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685. However, in that case also the Hon'ble Supreme Court after considering various judicial pronouncement has held that :-

26..... 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 30 (2020) SCC Online SC 896 Civil Appeals No. @ SLP (C) Nos.9602-03 of 2022 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 Signature Not Verified Signed by: SMT. GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 1/23/2023 2:56:28 PM

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....

This is not a case where any new or important fact has come to the knowledge of the petitioner. He has tried to reagitate the grounds that has been heard and negatived on earlier occasion.

In view of the facts and circumstances, no ground for review is made out.

This review petition is accordingly dismissed.

(NANDITA DUBEY) JUDGE gn

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SMT. GEETHA NAIR Signing time: 1/23/2023 2:56:28 PM