The High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissed a review petition filed against a second appeal judgment which had dismissed the original appeal. The court held that the petitioner could not re-argue merits based on documents not part of the record.
Review petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
REVP No. 73 of 2016
---- Petitioner
Versus
---- Respondents
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Petitioner : Shri Punit Ruparel, Advocate For Respondent No.4/State : Shri Anupam Dubey, Dy. G.A.
Hon'ble Shri Justice P. Sam Koshy Order on Board
14/06/2016
The present review petition has been preferred against the order dated 09-01-2014 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.128 of 1999 whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed. The sole ground of the applicant seeking review of the order dated 09-01-2014 is an undated document which is a complaint lodged by the appellant/petitioner to the Superintendent of Police, Durg. However, on a specific query being put to the counsel for the petitioner as to whether this document was at all part of the record of two proceedings i.e. before the trial Court as also in the First appeal, learned counsel for the petitioner
2
submitted that it was not a part of the record and it was also not part of record with the second appeal.
3
certain decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on the question of entertaining the review petition in the matters of Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Hitech Elctrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and others reported in (2002) 6 SCC 651, Government of T.N. & others vs. Ananchu Asari and others reported in (2005) 2 SCC 332, Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 85, Lily Thomas etc. vs. Union of India and others reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650 and Meera Bhanjan vs. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Chowdhary reported in AR 1995 SC 455.
5 ) All these judgments referred to above deal with the scope of a review petition and the crux of all these judgments, as a matter of principle as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is that in the garb of a review petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to converting the review petition into an appeal unless there is an error on the face of the record and on the part of the Court in passing of the judgment against which the review is sought for.
Sd/( P.Sam Koshy ) JUDGE
Kvr
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition can be used as a substitute for a second appeal where new documents not part of the original record are introduced.
Whether any error apparent on the face of the record justifies invoking the court's review jurisdiction in the present case.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Hitech Elctrothermicsm & Hydropower Ltd. and othersReferred¶22
(2002) 6 SCC 651 · Who else cites this
Government of T.N. & others vs. Ananchu Asari and othersReferred¶22
(2005) 2 SCC 332 · Who else cites this
Ajit Kumar Rath vs. State of Orissa and othersReferred¶22
AIR 2000 SC 85 · Who else cites this
Lily Thomas etc. vs. Union of India and othersReferred¶22
AIR 2000 SC 1650 · Who else cites this
Meera Bhanjan vs. Smt. Nirmal Kumar ChowdharyReferred¶22
AR 1995 SC 455
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Komal Singh Dhurendhar
Narayan Singh Dhurendhar
Narsingh Dhurendhar
Smt. Girja Bai Jau
State Of Madhya Pradesh
P. Sam Koshy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
