Madras High Court
The Secretary To Government vs S.H.Vasanthakumari on 8 August, 2023
Rev.Appl.No.147 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 08.08.2023
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.A.NAKKIRAN
Review Application No.147 of 2023
1. The Secretary to Government,
School Education Department,
Fort St. George,
Chennai-600 009.
2. The Director of School Education,
DPI Complex, College Road,
Chennai- 600 006.
3. The Chief Educational Officer,
Kancheepuram.
4. The District Educational Officer,
St.Thomas Mount,
Chennai- 600 044. ... Review Applicants
-vs-
1. S.H.Vasanthakumari
2. The Accountant General (pension),
No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai- 600018.
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.147 of 2023
3. The C.S.I. St. Thomas Higher Secondary School,
Rep. by its Secretary R.Gladwin Gabriel,
No.47, Butt Road, St. Thomas Mount,
Chennai- 600 016. ... Respondents
Prayer: Review Application filed against the order dated 01.09.2021 made in
W.A.No.2114 of 2021.
For Review Applicants : Mr.R.Neelakandan
Additional Advocate General
For Respondent : Mr.R.S.Anandan (R1)
****
ORDER
(Order of this Court was made by S.VAIDYANATHAN,J)
The Review Applicants have come forward with this Application, seeking to
review the judgment of this Court made in W.A.No.2114 of 2021 dated 01.09.2021, on
the ground that there is no provision under the Tamil Nadu Pension Rules, 1978 to
count the part time service of an Employee that there was a delay on the part of the 1 st
Respondent in approaching the Court.
2. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, it was represented by the
learned Additional Advocate General that in the light of the Government Order in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.147 of 2023
G.O.No.127, School Education Department dated 12.07.2023, the Review Applicants
are inclined to grant benefits to the persons concerned and since the present Review
Application is pending, the benefits could be extended to the persons concerned in this
Review Application, subject to the outcome of the Review Application.
3. From the above submission, it is clear that Review Applicants have decided to
extend the benefits to the persons concerned including 1st Respondent and therefore
keeping this Application, without there being any scope to maintain the same, will not
serve any purpose.
4. It is apposite to state here that as per settled law in terms of a catena of
decisions of this Court as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scope of review is
very minimal and it is circumscribed by the provisions of the statute. It would be
relevant to refer to a few Judgments of this Court as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court to
understand and appreciate the scope of review jurisdiction to find out if the Applicants
have made out a case for reviewing the order dated 15.02.2022 in W.A.No.248 of 2022.
An Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in the case of The Special Officer, Kallal Co-
operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District Vs. R.M.Rajarathinam and Others [Review Application (MD).
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.147 of 2023
No.82 of 2013] decided on 04.02.2015, held as follows:
“10... It is well settled that the scope of review is very limited.
The review applicant cannot re-argue and he is not entitled for re-
hearing on merits.”
5. In another decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of
Dhanalakshmi Vs. M.Shajahan and others reported in AIR 2004 Madras 512, it was
opined that the power of review is not an appeal in disguise. The relevant paragraphs of
the said order are extracted below:
"11. From the above judgments, it is seen that the law is well
settled inasmuch as the power of review is available only when there
is an error apparent on the face of the record and not on erroneous
decision. If the parties aggrieved by the judgment on the ground that
it is erroneous, remedy is only questioning the said order in appeal.
The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. may be opened
inter alia only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of
the record. The said power cannot be exercised as is not permissible
for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review
application also cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
Similarly, the error apparent on the face of the record must be such
an error, which must strikes one on mere looking at record and
would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points,
where there may conceivably be two opinions.”
6. Furthermore, in R.Mohala Vs. M.Siva and others in Review Petition No.61 of
2018 and WMP.No.10818 and 10819 of 2018 decided on 25.04.2018, one of us
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.147 of 2023
(SVNJ) elaborately discussed the scope of review and in Paragraph Nos.7 and 8, held as
follows:
“7.The basic principle to entertain the review under Order 47 Rule 1
C.P.C. is to correct the errors but not to substitute a view. The judgment
under review cannot be reversed (or) altered taking away the rights
declared and conferred by the Court under the said judgment; once a
judgment is rendered, the Court becomes functus officio and it cannot set
aside its judgment or the decree; no inherent powers of review were
conferred on the Court; the review Court cannot look into the trial Court
judgment; it can look into its own judgment for limited purpose to correct
any error or mistake in the judgment pointed out by the review petitioner
without altering or substituting its view in the judgment under review; the
review court cannot entertain the arguments touching the merits and
demerits of the case and cannot take a different view disturbing the
finality of the judgment; the review cannot be treated as appeal in
disguise, as the object behind review is ultimately to see that there should
not be miscarriage of justice and shall do justice for the sake of justice
only and review on the ground that the judgment is erroneous cannot be
sustained.
8. It is settled law that even an erroneous decision cannot be a
ground for the Court to undertake review, as the first and foremost
requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order under review
of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order
and in absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order
cannot be disturbed.”
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, while considering the scope of the power of
review of the High Court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C., held as follows:
"The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.147 of 2023
strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. The
review petition of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any
other ground. An error apparent on the face of the record must be such an
error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not
require any longdrawn process of reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions. The limitation of powers on court under
Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. is similar to jurisdiction available to the High
Court while seeking review of the orders under Article 226."
8. In the case in Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitri Devi, reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715,
the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"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. From a reading of the Judgments referred to above, it can be fairly discerned
that:
1.Review is not an appeal in disguise.
2.The 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 C.P.C.
3.A wrong exposition of the law or a wrong application of the
law and failure to apply the correct law cannot be a ground for
review.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.147 of 2023
4.The power to review is a restricted power given through a
Court to go through the Judgment only to correct it or improve it, on
the basis of some material which ought to have been considered,
escaped consideration or failed to be placed before it for any other
reason, but not to substitute a fresh or a second Judgment.
5.The power of review cannot be invoked to correct the
erroneous Judgment and the finality attached to a Judgment cannot
be disturbed.
6.Only errors which are apparent on the face of the record in
the sense that errors which strike on mere looking at record can only
be corrected and not those that require long drawn process of
reasoning on point.
10. The above are some of the basic principles on which the power to review
rests. The said principles are not exhaustive but only illustrative.
11. To review a Judgment / Order, the Applicants need to satisfy three basic
requirements of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C., which are as under:
(i) From discovery of new and important matter or evidence which
after 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;
(ii) There is some mistake (or) error apparent on the face of the
record in the judgment under review; and
(iii) or any other sufficient reasons.”
12. The grounds raised by the applicants, in our considered opinion, are beyond
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.147 of 2023
the scope of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and the law laid down by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court. The Review Applicants, in the
guise of this Review Petition, want this Bench to re-write its Judgment, which is not
possible under review jurisdiction. As already stated above, review is not an appeal in
disguise and as such, in this case, there is no error in the judgment under review,
apparent on the fact of the record. Therefore, this Court rightly confirmed the order of
the learned Single Judge, which does not warrant any review.
13. For all the above reasons, we find no merits in the review application and the
same deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, this Review Petition stands dismissed. It is made clear that the
benefits arising out of the order dated 01.09.2021 in W.A.No.2114 of 2021 shall be
extended within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
No costs.
[S.V.N., J.,] [A.A.N., J]
08.08.2023
Index: Yes / No
Internet: Yes
arr
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.147 of 2023
To
1. The Accountant General (pension),
No.361, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai- 600018.
2. The C.S.I. St. Thomas Higher Secondary School,
Rep. by its Secretary R.Gladwin Gabriel,
No.47, Butt Road, St. Thomas Mount,
Chennai- 600 016.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.Appl.No.147 of 2023
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
&
A.A.NAKKIRAN, J.
arr
Review Application No.147 of 2023
08.08.2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
