The Patna High Court dismissed review applications reiterating that review is not an appeal in disguise and is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record, not inappropriate appreciation of evidence.
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 JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Review No.260 of 2013
In
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 169 of 2011
======================================================
with
Civil Review No.263 of 2013
IN
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 1005 of 2010
Versus
M/S MAA ANNPURNA TRANSPORT AGENCY, PVT., LTD., AGAMKUAN PHARIPAR, NEAR SHITLA MANDIR PATNA CITY, PATNA ... .... Respondent
====================================================== with Civil Review No.264 of 2013
IN
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 170 of 2011
.... Petitioners
Versus
M/S EMAMI LTD. JAMAL RAOD, PATNA ….. Respondents
====================================================== Appearance : (In C. REV. No.260 of 2013) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Zaki Haider For the Respondent/s : Mr.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.260 of 2013 (4) dt.14-03-2014
2/3
(In C. REV. No.263 of 2013) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.
(In C. REV. No.264 of 2013) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI)
4 14-03-2014
All the Civil Review applications arise out of order dated 6.7.2012, passed in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 965 of 2010 heard analogous with other miscellaneous appeals, preferred against common judgment dated 25.5.2010, passed in revision cases by the Commercial Taxes Tribunal, Bihar, Patna. One such Cr.Revision No. 319 of 2013, preferred against M.A.No.319 of 2013 has already been dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 7.2.2014 which is quoted
herein below:-
“Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
The question of alleged inappropriate appreciation of the judgment in 1996(1) PLJR 547 (O.C. Corporation-v- State of Bihar) can appropriately be the subject matter of an appeal but cannot be a ground for review which has to be confined to errors apparent on the face of the record. An application for review is not an appeal in disguise.
The review application is dismissed.”
As the issues in the instant review applications are similar to Cr.Revision No.319 of 2013 and the petitioners have
Patna High Court C. REV. No.260 of 2013 (4) dt.14-03-2014
3/3
not been able to point out any error apparent on the record, these
review applications are also dismissed.
(I. A. Ansari, J)
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)
Shashi.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the alleged misappreciation of judgment constitutes a ground for review under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
Whether the High Court can exercise review jurisdiction to correct errors of appreciation of evidence.
State of Bihar Through the Commissioner Cum Principal Secretary, Commercial Taxes Department
Joint Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department Central Division
Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Taxes Department, Bureau of Investigation (IB)
M/S Emami Ltd.
M/S Maa Annpurana Transport Agency, Pvt., Ltd.
I. A. Ansari
Samarendra Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
