Ph. Lakshmi Chanu; & Ors vs Gunabati Kangabam;& Ors
2025 Latest Caselaw 389 Mani

Manipur High Court

Ph. Lakshmi Chanu; & Ors vs Gunabati Kangabam;& Ors on 30 May, 2025

KABORAMBA Digitally
          KABORAMBAM
                    signed by

M SANDEEP SANDEEP SINGH
          Date: 2025.06.06
SINGH     11:04:12 +05'30'

                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR
                                          AT IMPHAL
                                MC (Review. Pet.) No. 25 of 2023

                Ph. Lakshmi Chanu; & Ors.
                                                                            Applicants
                                       Vs.
                Gunabati Kangabam;& Ors.
                                                                          Respondents

BEFORE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. KEMPAIAH SOMASHEKAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AHANTHEM BIMOL SINGH (ORDER) (K. SOMASHEKAR, C.J.)

30.05.2025 Learned counsel for the respondents, namely, Mr. K. Roshan is

present before the Court physically.

Learned counsel for the applicants, namely, Ms. Malemleima is also

present before the court physically and seeks a short accommodation on the

premises that the senior counsel who is on record is held up before some other

Court.

However, learned counsel for the respondent submits that these

proceeding relates to filing an application seeking permission as a third party to

participate in this matter. This submission which is made by the learned counsel

for the respondent is taken record.

Keeping in view the submission made by the learned counsel for the

respondents, it is deemed appropriate to direct the learned counsel for the

applicants to clarify the position of that Order 147 Rule 1 CPC and also keeping in

view the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Sanjay

Page | 1 Kumar Agarwal and Ors. Vs. State Tax Officer (1) and Ors. reported in

(2024) 2 SCC 362, wherein it is observed in para 16 as thus:

(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.

(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.

Page | 2 Therefore, keeping in view the reliance which has been rendered by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the learned counsel for the applicants in this matter

seeking permission to file third party application, is directed to clarify this position.

If not, the matter would be viewed seriously.

Consequently, list this matter on 10.06.2025.

                      JUDGE                               CHIEF JUSTICE
Sandeep




                                                                                 Page | 3