Orissa High Court
Debasish Pattanaik vs Smt. Bani Bandana Das on 22 December, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
RVWPET No. 303 of 2022
Debasish Pattanaik ........ Petitioner
Mr. J.P. Mohapatra, Advocate
-versus-
Smt. Bani Bandana Das ...... Opposite Party
CORAM:
JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA
JUSTICE M.S. SAHOO
ORDER
22.12.2022
I.A. No.302 of 2022
Order No.
01 . 1. This matter is taken up through hybrid mode.
2. Heard Mr. J.P. Mohapatra, learned counsel appearing
for the Applicant.
3. This is an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 47 days in filing the
Review Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114
of the CPC in respect of the common judgment dated
24.08.2022 delivered in MATA No.75 of 2016 and MATA
No.76 of 2016. In the course of considering the causes
assigned for explaining the delay, we have taken care of merit
of the Review Petition.
4. In the Review Petition, the principal ground that has
been taken is that by affirming the judgment dated 25.04.2016
delivered in Civil Proceeding No.557 of 2014 by the Judge,
Family Court, Cuttack a serious error has been committed by
this Court while appreciating the evidence, based on which
leave to file the suit for divorce before completion of one year
of marriage has been refused. The error according to the
Applicant is apparent in the face of the record.
5. We have considered the other grounds which are in
our considered view an invitation for reappraising the
evidence for reversal of the finding.
6. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the applicant has
referred to a decision of the apex court in Board of Control
for Cricket in India vs. Netaji Cricket Club and Others: AIR
2005 SC 592.
7. In Netaji Cricket Club (supra), the sufficient reasons
included a misconception of fact or law by the court or even
by an advocate. But, in subsequent decision in State of West
Bengal & Ors vs. Kamal Sengupta & Anr: (2008) 8 SCC 616
the apex court has distinguished sufficient reasons. It has been
held that sufficient reasons under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC
have to be understood within the four corners of error
apparent. A passage from Kamal Sengupta (supra) is
reproduced hereunder for referring to the enunciation as noted
above:
"Under the provisions in the Travancore Code of
Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order
XLVII, Rule 1 of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the
Court of review has only a limited jurisdiction
circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the
language used therein. It may allow a review on three
specified grounds, namely, (i) discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after the exercise
of due diligence, was not within the applicant's
knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time
when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any
other sufficient reason. It has been held by the Judicial
Committee that the words "any other sufficient reason"
must mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, or least
analogous to those specified in the rule."
8. On scrutiny of the judgment dated 24.08.2022, we do
not find any misconception of fact or error apparent.
Elaborate reasons have been laid for affirmation of the
judgment dated 25.04.2016 as delivered in Civil Proceeding
No.557 of 2014. As there is no sustainable ground to maintain
the review, we are of the view that the delay of 47 days should
not be condoned.
9. Accordingly, this application for condonation of
delay stands dismissed.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
RVWPET No.303 of 2022
Order No.
02 . 1. In view of the order passed today in I.A. No.302 of
2022, this Review Petition is dismissed.
(S. Talapatra)
Judge
(M.S. Sahoo)
Judge
Murmu
