The court dismissed a review petition filed to recall and re-appreciate facts in a regular second appeal. The High Court held that the jurisdiction is limited to patent errors and cannot serve as a substitute for an appeal.
Review Petition No.59 of 2019 dismissed; pending applications disposed of.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA
Review Petition No.59 of 2019
in
RSA No.502 of 2006
Date of decision: 07.11.2019
| Om Prakash Chand | ….Petitioner |
|---|---|
| Versus | |
| Prakash Chand deceased through LRs Smt.Kalso and Others. |
…..Respondents |
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Sandeep Sharma, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting ?1
For the Petitioner: Mr.Rajiv Rai, Advocate. For Respondents: Mr.T.S. Chauhan, Advocate. 1(a) to 1(f).
Per Sandeep Sharma,J.:
By way of present Review Petition filed under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner to review and recall the judgment dated 20.09.2016, passed by this Court in RSA No.502 of 2006, titled as: Om Prakash vs. Prakash Chand, whereby this Court dismissed the aforesaid appeal after upholding the judgment and decree dated 20.09.2016, passed by learned District Judge, Hamirpur, affirming the
1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgement ?
2
judgment and decree dated 14.12.2005, passed by learned Civil Judge(Junior Division), Court No.II, Hamirpur.
2. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record of the case. 3. The grounds raised are nothing but reiteration of the grounds urged in Regular Second Appeal. The review jurisdiction is not meant to appreciate and re-appreciate the facts already considered and urged. The review petition cannot be equated with original hearing of the case and finality of the judgment cannot be questioned by opening the entire case. The submission made that the decision suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be accepted. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh,
AIR 1964 SC 1372 , held:
“11. .....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.....”
4. This Court sees no material irregularity manifest
in the order, undermining its correctness or resulting into
3
miscarriage of justice. Needless to say that the review is not an appeal in disguise, entitling a party to be heard, simply because the party wants decision to be otherwise.
5. Consequently, in view of above, as well as principles laid down in the judgments rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in Kunha Yammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and Another, (2000)6 SCC 359, Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs. Vishwanath Chaturvedi, (2013)2 SCC 1, Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors, (2013)8 SCC 320 and N.Anantha Reddy vs. Anshu Kathuria and Others, (2013)15 SCC 534, the present petition is dismissed. Pending applications, if any, are also disposed of.
November 7, 2019 (Sandeep Sharma) (aks) Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition, raising a patent error apparent on the face of the record, warrants entertaining a rehearing of the dismissed appeal.
Whether the present petition demonstrates a substantial point of law staring in the face that satisfies the test for error apparent on the face of the record.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
M/s.Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. The Government of Andhra PradeshExplained¶17
AIR 1964 SC 1372 · Who else cites this
Kunha Yammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and AnotherReferred¶23
(2000)6 SCC 359 · Who else cites this
Akhilesh Yadav Etc. vs. Vishwanath ChaturvediReferred¶23
(2013)2 SCC 1 · Who else cites this
Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & OrsReferred¶23
(2013)8 SCC 320 · Who else cites this
N.Anantha Reddy vs. Anshu Kathuria and OthersReferred¶23
(2013)15 SCC 534 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Om Prakash Chand
Prakash Chand deceased through LRs Smt.Kalso and Others.
Sandeep Sharma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
