Manipur High Court
The State Of Manipur Represented By The ... vs Konjengbam (O) Pishak Devi on 7 May, 2024
SHAMURAILATPAM Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA P a g e | 1
SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2024.05.15 11:21:58 +05'30'
Item No. 58
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
Review Petn. No. 13 of 2020
(Ref:- Arising out of W.P.(C) No. 640 of 2015)
1. The State of Manipur represented by the Principal
Secretary/Commissioner (Home), Government of Manipur.
2. The Deputy Commissioner, Bishnupur, Manipur.
3. The Superintendent of Police, Manipur Central Jail, Sajiwa,
Manipur.
4. The Officer-in-Charge, Moirang Police Station, Bishnupur,
Manipur.
5. The Officer-in-Charge, Heingang Police Station, Manipur.
Review Petitioners
Vs.
Konjengbam (O) Pishak Devi, aged about 43 years, W/o (L) K. Mani
Singh, resident of Moirang Siribon Leikai, P.O. & P.S. Moirang,
Bishnupur District, Manipur.
Respondent
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SIDDHARTH MRIDUL
HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE GOLMEI GAIPHULSHILLU KABUI
ORDER
07.05.2024.
Siddharth Mridul, C.J.:
Mr. M. Rarry, learned Special State Counsel, appears on behalf of the
State of Manipur and Mr. Irom Denning, learned counsel, appears on behalf of the
respondent.
Page |2
The present review petition has been instituted on behalf of the State
of Manipur under Chapter-IX of the High Court of Manipur Rules-2019 read with
Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure and Order XLVII (47) CPC, 1908 seeking
review of the Judgment and Order dated 17th December, 2019 passed in WP(C)
No. 640 of 2015 rendered by a Division Bench of this Court.
Having heard Mr. M. Rarry, learned Special State Counsel, appearing
on behalf of the State of Manipur, it is axiomatic that he seeks review of the
impugned judgment and order on the ground that it has been rendered under the
misconception of law.
We have been taken through the judgment and order under review
and have examined the same at length.
The coordinate Bench having considered the factual averments made
on behalf of the original petitioner; which were not seriously disputed by the State
of Manipur; arrived at the finding that the admitted death of the former's husband,
in judicial custody, entitled the family to receive compensation therefor.
Needless to state that the judgment and order under review has
considered at length the legal and factual submissions canvassed on behalf of the
contesting parties before arriving at the finding aforementioned.
It is trite to state that, an application for review is maintainable not
only on the discovery of a new and important piece of evidence, but also when
there exists an error apparent on the face of the record and/or if the same is
necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason.
Page |3
The expression "any other sufficient reason" has been judicially
interpreted to mean a reason sufficient on grounds analogous to those specified in
the rule.
In our view, the arguments vehemently addressed on behalf of the
State of Manipur are indicative of their contention that the judgment and order
under review is erroneous in law. No error of fact apparent on the face of the record
or any mistake, has been urged or brought to our notice, save and except the
submission that the order under review suffers from a misconception of law.
Furthermore, it would be pertinent that the State should observe that
the judgment and order under review is the final order rendered by the coordinate
Bench of this Court.
In our considered view, an erroneous judgment is not amenable to
review by the coordinate Bench; a fortiori, owing to the legal position that the latter
cannot act as an appellate Court as well as the reason that the power of review is
not an inherent power.
In view of the foregoing discussion, we find ourselves unable to
entertain the present application for review and accordingly, dismissed the same
without any order as to cost.
Review petition is disposed of accordingly.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
