Manipur High Court
The Sangeet Natak Academi And Another vs Potsangbam Victoria Devi And 2 Others on 5 June, 2025
SHAMURAILATPAM Digitally signed by
SHAMURAILATPAM SUSHIL SHARMA
SUSHIL SHARMA Date: 2025.06.10 13:29:13 +05'30'
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
AT IMPHAL
MC(Review.Pet.) No. 20 of 2024
The Sangeet Natak Academi and another
Applicant
Vs.
Potsangbam Victoria Devi and 2 Others
Respondents
BEFORE
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR
ORDER
05.06.2025
This MC(Review.Pet.) No. 20 of 2024 has been filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 read with Section 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure seeking for condoning the delay of 90 (ninety) days in filing the
accompanying Review Petition. In the meanwhile, Mr. Sarvan Kumar, the
learned counsel for the applicant clarifies that it is only 89 (eighty-nine) days
in filing the review petition for reviewing the judgment and order rendered
by the learned Single Judge in WP(C) No. 631 of 2021 dated 06.09.2022.
Heard the learned counsel Mr. Sarvan Kumar for the
applicant/petitioner inclusive of Mr. Kh. Tarunkumar, learned senior counsel
for the respondent No. 1.
Whereas in this matter, the learned counsel for the applicant is
submitting that there is a delay of 89 days in filing the review petition for
reviewing the judgment and order dated 06.09.2022 rendered by the learned
Single Judge on the writ side. Whereas in further, learned counsel for the
applicant in this matter submitting that subsequent to an order rendered by
the learned Single Judge on the writ side and initiation of the appeal
1|Page
proceeding in WA No. 9 of 2023, there is an order dated 10.06.2024.
However, the facts as narrated in the present miscellaneous case has already
been stated in the review petition and as such, in order to avoid repetition
of the said facts and this contention is taken on record for seeking
intervention by the learned counsel for the applicant. However, in para 3, it
is indicating that there is delay of 761 days in filing the aforesaid review
petition. Since the order dated 06.09.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge on the writ side in WP(C) No. 631 of 2021. However, in terms of the
aforesaid judgment and order dated 10.06.2024 rendered by the coordinate
Bench in WA No. 9 of 2023 there is a delay of 120 days in filing the present
review petition when the delay is counted from 11.06.2024. These are all
contentions taken by the learned counsel for the applicant in this matter for
seeking intervention.
Whereas the learned counsel for the respondents in this matter
is submitting that even though the condone delay application has been filed
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 there is no justifiable grounds
and reasons as stated in the condone delay applicable which is to be
acceptable.
On these premises, the learned counsel for the respondents in
the aforesaid miscellaneous application, the same deserves to be dismissed.
Whereas keeping in view the submission made by the learned
counsel for the petitioner/applicant and more so, the submission made by
learned senior counsel for the respondent in this proceeding are concerned,
it is deemed appropriate to refer the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal and Ors. Vs. State
Tax Officer (1) and Ors. dated 31st October, 2023 in Review Petition
(Civil) No. 1620 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020, Review Petition
(CIVIL) No. 1621 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No. 1661 of 2020 and other matters.
2|Page
Whereas in para 9 of the said judgment rendered by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court of India referred that "in the words of Krishna Iyer J.,
(as His Lordship then was) "a plea of review, unless the first judicial
view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic
defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look,
hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result......... A review
in the Counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given.
So, the law laid down must rest in peace."
Whereas in para 11 in the aforesaid judgment it is stated that
"In Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors.
MANU/SC/1360/1997 : (1997) 8 SCC 715, this Court made very
pivotal observations:
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure 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 Code of Civil Procedure. In
exercise of the jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code
of Civil Procedure 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."
Whereas in para 15 of the aforesaid judgment it is indicated
that "it is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench
in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired) and Ors.
3|Page
MANU/SC/0030/2021 : (2021) 3 SCC 1, held that even the change
in law or subsequent decision/judgment of co-ordinate Bench or
larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."
Whereas in para 16 it is observed that "The gist of the afore-stated
decisions is that:
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake
or an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified only when
circumstances of a substantial and compelling character
make it necessary to do so.
(iii) 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 record justifying the court to exercise
its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1
Code of Civil Procedure, it is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be "reheard and corrected."
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be an appeal in disguise."
(vi) Under the guise of review, the Petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have
already been addressed and decided.
4|Page
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error
which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should
not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the
points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/
judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be
regarded as a ground for review."
Therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid reliances and more so,
keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the respondents
in this matters and also keeping in view the provision of Section 5 of the
Limitation Act seeking for condoning the delay, it is indicating therein and
therefore, it is held that there are no justifiable reasons given in the
application filed by the applicant/petitioner and therefore, the proceeding in
MC(Review.Pet.) No. 20 of 2024 whereby seeking for condonation delay is
hereby rejected.
Consequently, this proceeding is hereby dismissed.
CHIEF JUSTICE
Sushil
5|Page
