Employees Provident vs Subash Chandra Parida on 8 December, 2025

Author: S.K. Sahoo

Bench: S.K. Sahoo

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
                          RVWPET No.238 of 2025

             Employees Provident
             Fund Organization and                 ....        Petitioners
             others

                                   Mr.Sidharth Shankar Padhy,
                                   Advocate

                              -versus-
             Subash Chandra Parida
             and others                ....                  Opp. Parties


                               CORAM:
                    HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.K. SAHOO
                   HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. S. MISHRA
                                ORDER

Order No. 08.12.2025

01. This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

The writ petitioners in the writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 23893 of 2025 have sought for review of the order dated 15.09.2025 passed by this Bench while dismissing the writ petition.

The operative portion of the order dated 15.09.2025 is extracted herein below for ready reference:-

" Admittedly, the opposite party no.1 has retired and in case as per the order of the learned Tribunal, he is given some relief, he will be entitled to only financial relief and thereby it will not affect any of the opposite party nos.2 to 12 in any manner.

In view of the analysis made in the impugned order, since the petitioners have been asked to re-

exercise the promotion to the post of Private Secretary and in that process, there is likelihood that the opposite party no.l may get some financial benefit, we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order."

Learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently urged that while affirming the order of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, this Court has not taken into account the contentions of the petitioners that the Original Application No. 606 of 2018 was filed after an inordinate delay of nearly seventeen years from the date of relevant promotions though it is settled law that stale claims in service matters cannot be revised. He further urged that this Court overlooked that the opposite party no.1's claim was based on incorrect analogy with the employees of other regions, who were governed by different regional seniority lists before the 1999 restructuring. Apart from other grounds, the learned counsel for the petitioners has prayed for review of the order dated 15.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 23893 of 2025 and to restore the writ petition to file.

Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter 'CPC') deals with review of judgment. An order can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal nor can an appellate power be exercised in the guise of power of review. Review is not re-hearing of an original matter. The power of review jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an inherent power and can be exercised for the correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to

attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case.

In the case of Parsion Devi and Ors. -Vrs.- Sumitri Devi and Ors. reported in (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

"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."

In Haridas Das -Vrs.- Usha Rani Banik (Smt.) and Ors. reported in (2006) 4 Supreme Court Cases 78, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"13....The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 Code of Civil Procedure and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing "on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason". The former part of the Rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter

to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the Court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This is amply evident from the Explanation to Rule 1 of Order 47 which states that the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Where the order in question is appealable, the aggrieved party has adequate and efficacious remedy and the Court should exercise the power to review its order with the greatest circumspection...."

In the case of State of West Bengal and Ors. -Vrs.- Kamal Sengupta and Anr. reported in (2008) 8 Supreme Court Cases 612, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows:

"21. At this stage, it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not

within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earlier."

In the case of Kamlesh Verma -Vrs.- Mayawati and Ors. reported in (2013) 8 Supreme Court Cases 320, the Hon'ble Supreme Court after analysing number of decisions on scope of review, laid down its conclusions, which read as follows:-

"Summary of the principles

20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki : AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius : AIR 1954 SC 526 to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. : (2013) 8 SCC 337.

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not

enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."

In the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal -Vrs.- State Tax Officer (1) and another reported in (2024) 2 Supreme Court Cases 362 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :

"16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:

16.1 A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

16.2 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.

xx xx xx xx 16.7 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."

In view of the ratio as discussed above and on hearing the learned counsel for the petitioners, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record warranting review of our order as aforesaid.

In the result, the RVWPET fails and the same stands dismissed.

( S.K. Sahoo) Judge

(S.S. Mishra) Judge PKSahoo

Location: HIGH COURT OF ORISSA