Abhijit Mishra vs Union Of India & Ors

D.N. Patel, CJ

Proceedings of the matter have been conducted through video conferencing.

CM No.18015/2020 in RP 121/2020 (exemption)

Allowed, subject to all just exceptions.

The application stands disposed of.

Review Petition 121/2020

This Review Petition has been preferred by the original writ petitioner seeking review of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4695/2020

which was preferred as a PIL for the benefit of advocates. The writ petition was dismissed vide our order dated 29th July, 2020.

Having heard the petitioner in-person and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we see no reason to entertain this Review Petition

mainly for the reason that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in our order dated 29th July, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.4695/2020.

Much has been argued out by the Review Applicant â€" party in person, about the previous orders wherein notices have been issued by this Court

in matters pertaining to creation of the post of Advocate General in Delhi, selection process for the students etc., which are annexed as Annexures to

the memo of the Review Petition. We have perused those annexures.

The present case is a PIL preferred by the party in-person for including Advocates in the definition of the word “professionalâ€​ under the Micro,

Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. We are of the view that the advocates are capable of filing their own litigation, if they wish to

do so. On this point itself, we have dismissed the writ petition as a PIL.

In the case of Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, the Hon’ble Supreme Court at Para 8 and 9 held as

under :

“8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47,

Rule 1, CPC. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the

High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case ofA ribam Tuleshwar Sharma v.

Aribam Pishak Sharma Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389 : AIR 1979 SC 1047, ]speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent

observations: (SCC p. 390, para 3)

“It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1963 SC 1909,] there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to

preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or

to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may

be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the

person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error

apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the

decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power

which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.â€​

Now it is also to be kept in view that in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly observed that they were

entertaining the review petition only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. So far as that aspect is

concerned, it has to be kept in view that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the

record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully refer to

the observations of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale [AIR 1960 SC 137 : (1960) 1

SCR 890] wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court has made the following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face

of the record:

An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said

to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established,

by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior

court to issue such a writ.â€​

(emphasis supplied)

In the case of Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. v. Mawasi, (2012) 7 SCC 20,0 the Hon’ble Apex Court at Paras 28, 29

and 30 held as under:

“28. In Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526, ]the three-Judge Bench referred to the

provisions of the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure, which was similar to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and observed: (AIR p. 538, para 32)

… It is needless to emphasise that the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. Under the provisions in

the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order 47 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, at least

analogous to those specified in the rule’. (See Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : AIR 1922 PC 112] )This conclusion was reiterated by

the Judicial Committee in Bisheshwar Pratap Sahi v. Parath Nath [(1933-34) 61 IA 378 : AIR 1934 PC 213 ]and was adopted by our Federal Court in

Hari Sankar Pal v. Anath Nath Mitter [AIR 1949 FC 106], FC at pp. 110-11. The learned counsel appearing in support of this appeal recognises the

aforesaid limitations and submits that his case comes within the ground of ‘mistake or error apparent on the face of the record’ or some ground

analogous thereto.â€​

In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1372 : (1964) 5 SCR 174, ]another three-Judge Bench reiterated that the power

of review is not analogous to the appellate power and observed: (AIR p. 1377, para 11)

“11. … A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We

do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to

say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and

there could reasonably be no two opinions, entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.â€​

In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389,] this Court answered in affirmative the question whether the High

Court can review an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution and proceeded to observe: (SCC p. 390, para 3)

“3. … But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and

important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be

produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found;

it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would

be the province of a court of appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to correct

all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.â€​

(emphasis supplied)

Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, 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 CPC.I n exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not

permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and correctedâ€. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot

be allowed to be “an appeal in disguiseâ€​.

In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, we see no reason to entertain this review petition as there is no error, much

less an error apparent on the face of the record, in our order dated 29th July, 2020 in W.P.(C) No.4695/2020. The Review Petition is accordingly

dismissed.