Satyendra Kumar vs U.P. Jal Nigam and Others

Kamal Kishore, J.—This is an application for review of the Judgment dated 10.1.2000 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 275 of 1999.

I have heard parties'' counsel.

Under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C., a judgment may be open to review if there is a mistake or error apparent on record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on face of record Justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. In exercise of jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be re-heard and corrected. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise" as has been held by Hon''ble Supreme Court in a ruling in Parsion Devi v. Sumitra Devi. 1997 SCC 715.

By the present review application, the applicant seeks to review my regular judgment passed in Writ Petition No. 275 of 1999 (S/S) and the grounds given in the annexed affidavit are as good as the grounds of appeal and this Court cannot sit over its own Judgment in appeal.

Earlier also the same view has been taken by Hon''ble Supreme Court as per the ruling in Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, , wherein it has been held by the Hon''ble Supreme Court that a power of review is not to be confused with appellate power. "Error apparent on face of record" means an error which strikes one on mere looking at record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may concernably be two opinions. It is well-settled that review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1. C.P.C. The review application is liable to be rejected in view of aforesaid rulings of Hon''ble Supreme Court etc.

The review application is hereby rejected.