This court dismissed a review application challenging a prior order dismissing a writ petition regarding police seniority. The court held that review is not an appeal in disguise and the petition failed to disclose any error apparent on the face of the record.
The review petition was dismissed, and no costs were awarded.
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.
Rev.A.No.18 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 29.11.2022
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN AND
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.SARAVANAN
Review Application No.18 of 2022
D.Damuraj
... Applicant
-vs-
Chennai- 600 004.
Chennai- 600 009.
... Respondents
Prayer: Review Application filed to review the order of this Court made in W.A.No.879 of 2019 dated 10.12.2020 in dismissing the Writ Appeal on an erroneous view of law and facts and also in relation to availability of certain additional material documents as well as that consideration of fundamental rules.
For Review Applicant : Mr.Soundararajan For Respondents : Mr.S.John S.Raja Singh Additional Government Pleader *****
O R D E R
The Review Applicant has come forward with this Application, seeking to review
the judgment of this Court made in W.A.No.879 of 2019 dated 10.12.2020.
1/10
Rev.A.No.18 of 2022
W.P.No.7010 of 2009 for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to call for the records of the
2/10
Rev.A.No.18 of 2022
at the bottom of the selected list of 1994-1995 batch. The learned counsel for the
Applicant drew the attention of this Court to Rule 25 of the Tamil Nadu Police Subordinate Service Rule, which is extracted hereunder:
"25. Seniority:
(a) The seniority of a person in any class or category or the service shall, unless he has been reduced to a lower rank as a punishment, be determined by the rank obtained by him in the list of approved candiates drawn up by the appointing authority, subject to the rule of reservation where it applies. The date of commencement of his probation shall be the date on which he joins duty irrespective of his seniority unless he has been appointed temporarily under sub rule (d) of rule 10 or sub rule (b) of rule 15 as the case may be."
the said training for which he submitted a representation stating that he was unable to join
3/10
Rev.A.No.18 of 2022
because of his father's ill health and sought permission to join in the next batch of training. His request was duly considered and the Department issued appointment order dated 16.04.1999 with instructions to join the training along with 1st batch of trainees selected
for the year 1997-98 with effect from 16.04.1999 and hence the question of fixing
seniority on par with the batchmates of the year 1994-1995 does not arise.
04.02.2015, held as follows:
“10... It is well settled that the scope of review is very limited. The review applicant cannot re-argue and he is not entitled for rehearing on merits.”
4/10
Rev.A.No.18 of 2022
Dhanalakshmi Vs. M.Shajahan and others reported in AIR 2004 Madras 512 , it was
opined that the power of review is not an appeal in disguise. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are extracted below:
"11. From the above judgments, it is seen that the law is well settled inasmuch as the power of review is available only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not on erroneous decision. If the parties aggrieved by the judgment on the ground that it is erroneous, remedy is only questioning the said order in appeal. The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. may be opened inter alia only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. The said power cannot be exercised as is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review application also cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". Similarly, the error apparent on the face of the record must be such an error, which must strikes one on mere looking at record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points, where there may conceivably be two opinions.”
2018 and WMP.No.10818 and 10819 of 2018 decided on 25.04.2018 , one of us (SVNJ) elaborately discussed the scope of review and in Paragraph Nos.7 and 8, held as follows:
“7.The basic principle to entertain the review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is to correct the errors but not to substitute a view. The judgment under review cannot be reversed (or) altered taking away the rights declared and conferred by the Court under the said judgment; once a judgment is rendered, the Court becomes functus officio and it cannot set aside its judgment or the decree; no inherent powers of review were conferred on the Court; the review Court cannot look into the trial Court judgment; it can look into its own judgment for limited purpose to correct any error or mistake in the judgment pointed out by the review petitioner
5/10
Rev.A.No.18 of 2022
without altering or substituting its view in the judgment under review; the review court cannot entertain the arguments touching the merits and demerits of the case and cannot take a different view disturbing the finality of the judgment; the review cannot be treated as appeal in disguise, as the object behind review is ultimately to see that there should not be miscarriage of justice and shall do justice for the sake of justice only and review on the ground that the judgment is erroneous cannot be sustained.
Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170 , while considering the scope of the power of
review of the High Court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C., held as follows:
"The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. The review petition of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. An error apparent on the face of the record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any longdrawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. The limitation of powers on court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. is similar to jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking review of the orders under Article 226."
Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"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
6/10
Rev.A.No.18 of 2022
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."
1.Review is not an appeal in disguise.
2.The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C.
3.A wrong exposition of the law or a wrong application of the law and failure to apply the correct law cannot be a ground for review.
4.The power to review is a restricted power given through a Court to go through the Judgment only to correct it or improve it, on the basis of some material which ought to have been considered, escaped consideration or failed to be placed before it for any other reason, but not to substitute a fresh or a second Judgment.
5.The power of review cannot be invoked to correct the erroneous Judgment and the finality attached to a Judgment cannot be disturbed.
6.Only errors which are apparent on the face of the record in the sense that errors which strike on mere looking at record can only be corrected and not those that require long drawn process of reasoning on point.
The said principles are not exhaustive but only illustrative.
7/10
Rev.A.No.18 of 2022
requirements of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C., which are as under:
(i) From discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge (or) could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed (or) order made;
(ii) There is some mistake (or) error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment under review; and
(iii) or any other sufficient reasons.”
to be dismissed.
8/10
Rev.A.No.18 of 2022
14.Accordingly, this Review Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
[S.V.N., J.,] [C.S.N., J] 29.11.2022
Index: Yes / No Internet: Yes / No Speaking order/Non speaking order arr
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J. & C.SARAVANAN, J. arr
To
9/10
Rev.A.No.18 of 2022
Chennai- 600 004.
Chennai- 600 009.
Review Application No.18 of 2022
29.11.2022
10/10
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can entertain a review application on the ground of an erroneous view of law and facts regarding seniority in police service.
Whether the scope of review jurisdiction extends to substituting the court's own view or correcting an erroneous decision not apparent on the face of the record.
Whether the petitioner has established any error apparent on the face of the record to justify reopening the final judgment in Writ Appeal No.879 of 2019.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
The Special Officer, Kallal Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vs. R.M.Rajarathinam and OthersReferred¶43
The Special Officer, Kallal Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Karaikudi, Sivagangai District Vs. R.M.Rajarathinam and Others [R
Dhanalakshmi Vs. M.Shajahan and othersExplained¶49
Dhanalakshmi Vs. M.Shajahan and others reported in AIR 2004 Madras 512 · Who else cites this
R.Mohala Vs. M.Siva and othersExplained¶53
R.Mohala Vs. M.Siva and others in Review Petition No.61 of 2018 and WMP.No.10818 and 10819 of 2018
Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari ChoudhuryExplained¶61
Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170 · Who else cites this
Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitri DeviExplained¶65
Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitri Devi reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
D.Damuraj
The Director General of Police, Tamil Nadu, Chennai- 600 004
The Secretary to Government Home (Police) Department, Secretariat, Chennai- 600 009
S.Vaidyanathan
C.Saravananan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
