Mrs. Joyce Cynthia Prabhakar and Another vs A.S.K. Sircar

Surya Prakash Kesarwani, J.—These review applications have been filed on behalf of Mrs. Joyce Cynthia Prabhakar and another and defendant-appellants for review of the common judgment dated 31.5.2013 passed in the above noted two special appeals. We have heard Sri Dhruva Narayana, learned Counsel for the applicants (defendant-appellants) and Sri Navin Sinha, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri P.K. Ganguly for the respondents.

Sri Dhruva Narayan submits that the judgment dated 31.5.2013 is liable to be reviewed under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of C.P.C. for the following reasons:

(i) The special appeals were essentially in the nature of first appeal arising in the testamentary suits governed by the provisions of CPC and as such the principles underlying Order XLI, Rule 31, C.P.C. were applicable but the Court has failed to set out the points for determination independent of the issues framed by the learned Single Judge for decision in appeal.

(ii) The entire evidences by either of the parties have not been considered or discussed in detail and inordinate and unwarranted reliance had been placed on assessment of evidences by learned Single Judge on issues framed by it, have been adopted, which is impermissible and renders the judgment to be reviewed.

(iii) The Rulings cited on behalf of the appellants have not been adverted to except by referring to the citation.

(iv) Entire evidence of D.W. 1 and D.W. 3 has not been subjected to any assessment independently which is against the principles laid down in the judgment in H. Siddiqui (dead) by L.Rs. Vs. A. Ramalingam, .

(v) The Division Bench has failed to adopt the approach directed by the Apex Court in the case, H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others, , inasmuch as in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench has failed to investigate whether the disputed Will was proved by the respondent.

On the strength of the aforesaid arguments, Sri Dhruva Narayan submits that the judgment dated 31.5.2013 suffers from error apparent on the face of record and, therefore, the same is liable to be reviewed.

Sri Navin Sinha submits that in paragraph 12 of the judgment dated 31.5.2013 the Court has formulated the points for determination as under:

(i) Whether the Will dated 5.9.1994 is valid?

(ii) Whether this Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances which have not been removed?

(iii) Whether the Will is an unnatural bequest?

(iv) Whether the Will dated 5.9.1994 is forged document?

Elaborating his submissions, Sri Navin Sinha submits that in view of the fact that points for determination were formulated in paragraph 12 of the judgment and as such the first ground for review argued by learned Counsel for the applicants is wholly misconceived. Sri Sinha drew the attention of the Court to various paragraphs of the judgment and particularly paragraphs 24 and 25 wherein the law settled by the Apex Court in various judgments have been summarized. He further submits that in the judgment dated 31.5.2013, the Court has applied the principles of law laid down in various judgments of the Apex Court on the facts of the present case and thus the judgment does not suffer from any error of apparent on record.

Sri Sinha further submits that the Court while rendering the judgment dated 31.5.2013 has considered elaborately each and every point for determination with reference to the facts and evidences available on record and thereafter, recorded the finding that the Will dated 5.9.1994 executed by Mrs. Edna Diamond Peters is wholly valid and the Will has been proved. He submits that the grounds of review advanced by the applicants are in the nature of grounds of appeal. The grounds of review so raised is wholly outside the scope of Order XLI, Rule 1, C.P.C. He relied upon the judgment of Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, . He submits that all the points raised by the applicants are for re-appreciation of evidences and as an appeal which are outside the scope of review.

We have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties. We find that the scope of review is limited to the extent provided in Order XLVII, Rule 1. A person aggrieved by a decree or order, may apply for review of the judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, only on 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 was made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason. The words "error apparent on the face of the record" means that it 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. If an error has to be established by long drown process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an opinion on the face of the record. An error apparent on the face of record must be self-evident. It should not be such an error, which has to be established by lengthy and complicated arguments. Re-appreciation of evidence is not permissible under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. The attack on the findings of the judgment on the ground that it is erroneous, is no ground for review unless, such an error is apparent on the face of the record. If the error is not apparent on the face of the record, the aggrieved person may invoke the appellate jurisdiction as may be provided under the relevant statute but he cannot be permitted to apply for review. In a recent judgment in the case of N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria in Civil Appeal No. 10779-80 of 2013 decided on 2.12.2013, Hon''ble Supreme Court has held as under:

The review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on record means that the mistake is self evident, needs no search and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits.

We find that in paragraph 12 of the judgment, the points were formulated. The arguments of the applicants and the respondents and the evidences on record have been considered in the judgment dated 31.5.2013 and thereafter findings have been recorded that the will is valid and was proved.

In view of the foregoing discussions, we find no error apparent on record in the judgment dated 31.5.2013. Both the review applications have no merit and, therefore, deserves to be rejected. In result, both the review applications fail and are hereby rejected. However, there shall be no order as to cost.