United India Insurance Company Ltd. vs Meera Diwedi and Others

Anil Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the review petitioner and perused the record.

By means of present review petition under section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. read with Rule 14 Chapter IX of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952, the review petitioner sought for review of the order dated 25.11.2014 passed in Civil Revision No. 61 of 2014 (United India Insurance Company Limited v. Smt. Meera Diwedi and others).

Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava, learned Counsel for the review petitioner has argued the review petition mainly on the following ground:

"Because in a similar matter decided by a Division Bench of this Hon''ble High Court in First Appeal From Order No. 45/2014 (United India Insurance Company Ltd., Lucknow v. Santosh Kumar Mishra and others) set aside the judgment of the Tribunal directed the Tribunal to register the claim petition in original number and frame necessary issues having regard to the pleadings of the parties and in the said case also the offending vehicle and it owner was not impleaded."

Before dealing the submission which has been raised by learned Counsel for the review petitioner in the matter in issue, I feel it appropriate to see the ambit scope and parameters in which the Court can review its earlier order. In this regard Hon''ble the Apex Court in the case of Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 : (1964) 5 SCR 174 The Apex Court held that 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.

Hon''ble the Apex Court in Subhash Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, AIR 2002 SC 2537 : (2001) 10 JT 339 : (2002) LabIC 2473 : (2002) 4 SCT 608 : (2002) 1 UJ 458 : (2002) AIRSCW 2759 the Apex Court emphasised that Court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertain the review application unless there are circumstances falling within the prescribed limits for that as the Courts and Tribunal should not proceed to re-examine the matter as if it was an original application before it for the reason that it cannot be a scope of review.

This Court in the case of Bhagwati Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation and Another, AIR 1977 All 163 rejected the review application filed on a ground which had not been argued earlier because the Counsel, at initial stage, had committed mistake in not relying on and arguing those points, held as under:

"It is not possible to review a judgment only to give the petitioner a fresh inning. It is not for the litigant to judge of Counsel''s wisdom after the case has been decided. It is for the Counsel to argue the case in the manner he thinks it should be argued. Once the case has been finally argued on merit and decided on merit, no application for review lies on the ground that the case should have been differently argued."

In Shivdeo Singh and Others Vs. State of Punjab and Others, AIR 1963 SC 1909 in a review petition filed under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. the Supreme Court held that the power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in reviewing its own orders, every Court including High Court inheres plenary jurisdiction, to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.

Further, the review lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 read with section 141, C.P.C. The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other " sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in the said provision of C.P.C.

Thus, in view of the abovesaid facts, review can be allowed only on (1) discovery of new and important matter of evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review, or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, or (2) when some mistake or error on the face of record is found, or (3) on any analogous ground. But review is not permissible on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits as the same would be the province of an Appellate Court.

In View of the above discussion, the law of review can be summarized that it lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C.. The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other'' sufficient reason must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. Under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to re-open the case and to gain a full-fledged inning for possible for the Court to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier. Review lies only when there is error apparent on the fact of the record and that fallibility is by the over-sight of the Court.

Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh and Another etc. Vs. State of Gujarat and Others etc., AIR 2004 SC 3467 : (2004) CriLJ 2855 : (2004) 5 SCALE 397 : (2004) 5 SCC 353 : (2004) 3 SCR 571 Supp : (2004) 2 UJ 1491 after placing reliance on its earlier judgments i.e., P.N. Eswara Iyer etc. vs. The Registrar, Supreme CourtAIR 1980 808 (SC) Suthenthiraraja @ Santhan and Others etc. etc. Vs. State Through DSP/CBI, SIT, Chennai etc. etc., AIR 1999 SC 3700 : (1999) CriLJ 4587 : (1999) 8 JT 132 : (1999) 6 SCALE 381 : (1999) 9 SCC 323 : (1999) 3 SCR 540 Supp : (1999) AIRSCW 3734 : (1999) 8 Supreme 438 Ram Deo Chauhan @ Raj Nath Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2001 SC 2231 : (2001) CriLJ 2902 : (2001) 3 Crimes 77 : (2001) 1 JT 300 Supp : (2001) 4 SCALE 116 : (2001) 2 SCALE 298 : (2001) 5 SCC 714 : (2001) 3 SCR 669 and Devinder Singh and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 2003 SC 3365 : (2003) CriLJ 4976 : (2003) 1 JT 244 Supp : (2003) 7 SCALE 580 : (2003) 11 SCC 488 : (2003) AIRSCW 4779 : (2003) 6 Supreme 768 observed that review applications "are not to be filed for the pleasure of the parties or even as a device for ventilating remorselessness, but ought to be resorted to with a great sense of responsibility as well."

In the present case the ground on which review has been sought is mainly that order dated 25.11.2004 is not in confirmatory with a decision given by a Division Bench of this Court in First Appeal From Order No. 45 of 2014 (United India Insurance Company Limited, Lucknow v. Santosh Kumar Mishra and others). Needless to mention herein that the said judgment has not been brought or produced at the time of the order which has sought to be reviewed and the said fact has been very fairly admitted by learned Counsel for review petitioner Sri Anil Kumar Srivastava. Thus, once it is not in dispute rather admitted by learned Counsel for the review petitioner that the ground on which review has been sought for recall of the order dated 25.11.2014 passed in revision, the same was not brought to the notice of the Court/pleaded at the time of hearing of the revision, so on the basis of the same, review cannot be allowed. For the foregoing reason, the review petition lacks merit and is dismissed as such.