WPSS/378/2020
2022 Latest Caselaw 3939 UK

                Office Notes,
             reports, orders or
SL.           proceedings or
      Date                                        COURT'S OR JUDGES'S ORDERS
No             directions and
             Registrar's order
              with Signatures
                                  MCC No. 12514 of 2022 (Review Application)
                                  In
                                  WPSS No. 378 of 2020
                                  Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.

Mr. Alok Mahra, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Devesh Ghildiyal, Brief Holder for the State of Uttarakhand.

Mr. Siddhant Manral & Mr. Dharmendra Barthwal, Advocate for respondent no. 5 / review applicant.

Heard learned counsel for the parties. Respondent no. 5 has sought review of the judgment dated 24.08.2022 by filing this review application. In the review application, review-applicant has contended that view taken by this Court is erroneous. If that is so, the remedy lies before the Appellate Court.

It is settled position in law that review cannot be treated as an Appeal in disguise. An order, which is erroneous, can only be challenged by filing an Appeal. Review of an order can be made only when there is some error apparent on the face of record. It is not a case herein.

Learned counsel for the review has not been able to point out any error apparent on the face of record, which may warrant invocation of review jurisdiction.

Hon'ble Supreme Court has summarized the legal position in the case of Subramanian Swamy v. State of T.N. reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75. Paragraph 52 of the said judgment is extracted below:

"52. The issue can be examined from another angle. The Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") provides that if the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based, is reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, it shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment. Thus, even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for the court to undertake review, as the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and in absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed."

This Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the judgment, which may justify invocation of review jurisdiction.

Accordingly, the review application is dismissed.

(Manoj Kumar Tiwari, J.) 07.12.2022 Navin