Uttarakhand High Court
Dr. Anil Sharma vs State Of Uttarakhand on 6 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE RAVINDRA MAITHANI
AND
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR VERMA
6th APRIL, 2022
REVIEW APPLICATION NO.600 OF 2020
In
WRIT PETITON (S/B) NO.189 OF 2019
Dr. Anil Sharma
...Review-Petitioner/Writ Petitioner
Versus
State of Uttarakhand
and Another ...Respondents
Counsel for the Review Petitioner/
Writ Petitioner. : Mr. A.S. Rawat, learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Prabhakar
Narayan, learned counsel.
Counsel for the State : Mr. Pradeep Joshi, learned
Additional Chief Standing Counsel.
Corum: Hon'ble Ravindra Maithani, J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J.
Hon'ble Alok Kumar Verma, J. (Oral)
This Review Petition has been filed to review
the judgment dated 12.10.2020, passed by the Co-
ordinate Bench in Writ Petition (S/B) No.189 of 2019,
"Anil Sharma vs. State of Uttarakhand and Another",
whereby the writ petition, filed by the review petitioner,
has been dismissed.
2. Heard Mr. A.S. Rawat, the learned Senior
Advocate assisted by Mr. Prabhakar Narayan, the
learned counsel for the review petitioner and Mr.
Pradeep Joshi, the learned Additional Chief Standing
Counsel for the State.
3. The learned Senior Advocate appearing for
the review-petitioner submitted that a show cause
notice was given to the review petitioner-writ petitioner.
He moved a representation before the Department.
However, before considering his representation, the
Department removed the petitioner and these aspects
have not been considered by the Co-ordinate Bench in
accordance with law in the judgment dated 12.10.2020.
4. We heard, perused and gone through the
record.
5. From perusal of the judgment under review, it
is quite clear that the said contentions were raised by
the petitioner before the Writ Court. The Writ Court
considered the same and after considering the said
contentions, the writ petition was dismissed.
6. At this stage, it is necessary to refer the
provisions of Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. Rule 1 of Order XLVII reads as under:
"1. Application for review of
judgment-
(1) Any person considering himself
aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an
appeal is allowed, but from which no
appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no
appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a
Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which,
after the exercise of due diligence, was
not within his knowledge or could not be
produced by him at the time when the
decree was passed or order made, or on
account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record, or for
any other sufficient reason, desires to
obtain a review of the decree passed or
order made against him, may apply for a
review of judgment of the Court which
passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a
decree or order may apply for a review of
judgment notwithstanding the pendency
of an appeal by some other party except
where the ground of such appeal is
common to the applicant and the
appellant, or when, being respondent, he
can present to the Appellate Court the
case on which he applies for the review.
Explanation.- 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."
7. The right to review is the exception to the
Latin term "Functus Officio". The power of review is
very limited and it may be exercised only if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of record. The
review application cannot be decided like a regular
intra-court appeal.
8. In view of the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi and others
vs. Shri Pradyumansinghji, AIR 1970 SC 1273, the
power of review can be exercised for correction of a
mistake. Such power can be exercised within the limits
of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The
review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The
mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a
ground for review.
9. In Lily Thomas vs. Union of India and
others, AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has held that the power of review can be
exercised for correction of a mistake, and not to
substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within
the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of this
power.
10. It is settled position that the review petitioner
cannot re-argue the matter in the guise of review
petition. The review cannot be treated as an appeal in
disguise. In the absence of any error apparent on the
face of the judgment, finality attached to the judgment
cannot be disturbed. The present review petition does
not come within the purview of Order XLVII Rule 1 of
C.P.C. Under these circumstances, this Court is of the
view that there is no substance in the review petition. It
is an attempt to re-argue the matter. Therefore, the
Review Petition (No. 600 of 2020) is liable to be
rejected; the same is dismissed.
____________________
RAVINDRA MAITHANI, J.
___________________
ALOK KUMAR VERMA, J.
Dt: 6th April, 2022
Neha/Pant
