Pawan Kumar Poddar vs Omiya Ranjan And Ors

This application has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for review of the judgment and order dated 29.09.2016, whereby Second Appeal No.20 of 2013, preferred by the petitioner, was dismissed.

Learned counsel, for the petitioner, has submitted that the second appeal was dismissed by this Court without formulating the substantial question of law as mandated under Section 100 of the Civil Procedure Code. That this Court has failed to appreciate that the first appellate Court has affirmed the judgment of the trial court without framing the points for determination in terms of Order XLI Rule 31 of C.P.C. That no independent findings were recorded by the first appellate court on the question of personal necessity. The court below has erroneously interpreted the definition of 2(h) of Bihar Building (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Act, 1882 now Jharkhand Building (Rent, Lease & Eviction) Act, 2000.

It is contended that the impugned judgment requires to be reviewed for the ends of justice and for reconsideration of the arguments raised by the petitioner.

Learned counsel, for the opposite parties, has submitted that no error apparent on the face of the record, has been pointed out for entertaining the present application for review of the impugned judgment. It is argued that in the impugned judgment the legal and factual aspect has been elaborately discussed and the findings of the first appellate court has been affirmed by this Court with the observation that no substantial question of law is involved for adjudication or determination in the second appeal.

Heard. In this context it is necessary to state that the legal position is well settled that the jurisdictional power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, is of a limited scope. The settled proposition is that a judgment or order can be reviewed if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

Order XLVII, Rule 1, adumbrates that a judgment or order can be reviewed on (i) on discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant (ii) such important matter or evidence could not be produced by the applicant at the time the decree was passed or order made; and (iii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or, any other sufficient reason. The explanation to Order XLVII, Rule 1, states the fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reviewed or modified by the subsequent decision of a Supreme Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715, in paragraph nos.7 & 9, has held as under :-

"7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. (SCR at p. 186) this Court opined:

"What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'). The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error."

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. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".

The well settled legal proposition as expounded in plethora of decisions by the Apex Court, is that for review of a judgment or order 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 the points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. The review can not be appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision can be reheard and corrected. The petitioner has an efficacious remedy to challenge the findings by filing an appeal before a higher forum. In the judgment, sought to be reviewed, this Court has held that there is no substantial question of law involved in the second appeal. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel does not delineate any error apparent on the face of the record, hence, the review of the judgment is impermissible for rehearing and rendering a fresh decision of this case.

In the attending facts and the discussion made here-in-above, it is held that no error apparent on the face of the record has been broughtforth for this Court, to entertain the application for review of the judgment dated 29. 09.2016, passed in Second Appeal No.20 of 2013.

This review application being sans merit stands dismissed.