AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Mohd. Jamshed, Member (A)
This R.A. has been filed against the order dated 21.02.2023 passed by the Tribunal in O.A. No.1893/2022 on grounds, as stated in the O.A., counter affidavit and also the rejoinder.
The grounds for seeking review span across the pleadings in the O.A. It is submitted that the points raised in the counter affidavit have also been countered in the rejoinder. There is, however, no new point raised and no apparent error has been indicated in the order passed on 21.02.2023 in O.A. No.1893/2022.
I have carefully considered the plea made in the R.A., which is confined to reiterating various points raised in the O.A. Any review, as prayed, would amount to reconsidering the O.A. and re-examining the merits of the case almost akin to rewriting another judgment.
Under Order XLVII 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.
It is stare decisis that even when the order passed is wrong and erroneous, the R.A. would not be maintainable. It can be entertained only on the limited grounds, such as (i) there is an error apparent on the face of record, (ii) some such documents, which could not be produced at the time of final adjudication despite due diligence, are brought to the notice of the Court with R.A.; and (iii) there is some other sufficient reason. I do not find any such ground in the present proceedings.
It is also a settled law that the ‘Review’ can be undertaken only where any apparent error on the face of the record is pointed out. In the case of Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa & others, (1999) 9 SCC 596, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under:-
“The provisions extracted above indicate that the power of review available to the Tribunal is the same as has been given to a court under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC. The power is not absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions indicated in Order 47. The power can be exercised on the application of a person on 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 order was made. The power can also be exercised on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. A review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing it. It may be pointed out that the expression "any other sufficient reason" used in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason sufficiently analogous to those specified in the rule.
Any other attempt, except an attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set out in Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment.”
(Emphasis added)
The same points were further reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Gopal Singh v. State Cadre Forest Officers’ Assn. & others, (2007) 9 SCC 369, wherein it has been observed as follows:-
“25. The learned counsel for the State also pointed out that there was no necessity whatsoever on the part of the Tribunal to review its own judgment. Even after the microscopic examination of the judgment of the Tribunal we could not find a single reason in the whole judgment as to how the review was justified and for what reasons. No apparent error on the face of the record was pointed, nor was it discussed. Thereby the Tribunal sat as an appellate authority over its own judgment. This was completely impermissible and we agree with the High Court (Justice Sinha) that the Tribunal has traveled out of its jurisdiction to write a second order in the name of reviewing its own judgment. In fact the learned counsel for the appellant did not address us on this very vital aspect.”
In view of the above mentioned, I do not find any merit in the present R.A. and the same is accordingly dismissed in circulation.