Madras High Court
The Commissioner vs R. Palanivel on 21 December, 2023
Author: S. Vaidyanathan
Bench: S. Vaidyanathan
Review Application No. 139 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 21.12.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
REVIEW APPLICATION No. 139 of 2022
&
C.M.P. No. 12276 of 2022
The Commissioner,
Erode Corporation, Erode. ..Petitioner
Vs.
1. R. Palanivel
2. The Director of Municipal
Administration,
Ezhilagam, Chepauk,
Chennai – 600 005. ..Respondents
Prayer: Review Application as against the judgment dated 25.02.2022
passed in W.A. No. 348 of 2022.
1\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 139 of 2022
For Petitioner :: Mr.S. Silambanan,
Addl.Advocate General II
assisted by
Mr.M. Rajamathivanan
For Respondents :: Ms.Dakshayani Reddy,
Senior Counsel for
Mr.P. Rajavel for R1
Mr.K. Tippu Sultan,
Govt. Advocate for R2
ORDER
(Made by S. Vaidyanathan,J.)
The present review application has been filed as against the judgment
dated 25.02.2022 passed in W.A. No. 348 of 2022.
2. The 1st respondent had filed the writ petition challenging the
order passed by the review applicant denying him the benefit of promotion
as an Assistant Engineer on the ground that Diploma/B.E. Degree
qualification acquired through Distance Education was not equivalent to the
qualification obtained through regular stream as per G.O.Ms. No. 149
Higher Education Department dated 22.07.2016. The learned Single Judge,
2\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 139 of 2022
by order dated 01.09.2021 allowed the writ petition following the decision
of the Division Bench of this Court rendered in W.A. No. 3884 of 2019,
which was based on earlier decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
Aggrieved by the same, the intra court appeal i.e, W.A. No. 348 of 2022
came to be filed by the review applicant, which was dismissed by judgment
dated 25.02.2022 observing as hereunder:
"8. From the above, it is clear that the rights accrued to the
candidates who have acquired the Degree prior to the
aforesaid G.O. cannot be simply taken away. The learned
Single Judge, by following the Judgment of the Division Bench
of this Court in W.A. No. 3884 of 2019, in which Judgment of
Hon'ble Supreme Court has been followed has granted relief
to the Writ Petitioner. Therefore, we are not inclined to take a
different view in this matter and we find no merits in this Writ
Appeal."
3. Based on the rendering of a Division Bench of this Court in
W.A. No. 3884 of 2019 following the earlier orders of the Hon'ble Apex
Court, W.A. No. 348 of 2022 has been dismissed and we find no reason to
entertain this review application.
3\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 139 of 2022
4. That apart, it is now fairly well settled by a series of decision's
of this Hon'ble 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 few Judgments of this Hon'ble Court
as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court to understand and appreciate the scope of
review jurisdiction to find out if the petitioner has made out a case for
reviewing the order dated 01.09.2021 in W.A.No.2133 of 2021. A 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). 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
4\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 139 of 2022
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 (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
5\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 139 of 2022
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:
6\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 139 of 2022
"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. 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. Hence, the review application stands dismissed. No costs.
Connected C.M.P. is closed.
7\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 139 of 2022
(S.V.N.J.) (M.S.Q.J.)
nv 21.12.2023
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ,J.
nv
Review Application No. 139 of 2022
8\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 139 of 2022
21.12.2023
9\9
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
