Patna High Court rejected a Civil Review appeal, holding that grounds stated were insufficient as no patent error apparent on the face of the record was found, citing Supreme Court precedents on review jurisdiction.
Civil Review application rejected.
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.155 of 2017 IN
LPA 1208 of 2013
===========================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sachida Nand Kishore Pd. Sinha, Advocate Mr. Pankaj, Advocate Mr. Prem Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For B.S.H.B. : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Binita Singh, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 19-07-2017
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
This review application has been preferred seeking review of the order dated 24.4.2013 passed by the Division Bench in L.P.A. No.1208 of 2013.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sasi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs.
Patna High Court C. REV. No.155 of 2017 dt.19-07-2017
2/3
Arabindakshan Nair And Anr., (2017) 4 SCC 692 in which the principle of law has been laid down in paras 6 to 9 in the following manner, we find no case made out for review. Paragraph Nos.6 to 9 of the judgment reads as under:
“11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an “error apparent on the face of the record”. The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical State of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an “error apparent on the face of the record”, for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by “error apparent”. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error”. (emphasis supplied)
“9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, a judgment may be
Patna High Court C. REV. No.155 of 2017 dt.19-07-2017
3/3
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 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”.”
The aforesaid authorities clearly spell out the nature, scope and ambit of power to be exercised. The error has to be selfevident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning. We have adverted to the aforesaid aspects only to highlight the nature of review proceedings.
In view of the above, the application is rejected.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ)
(Sudhir Singh, J)
K.C.jha/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | N/A |
| Uploading Date | 25.7.2017 |
| Transmission Date |
N/A |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition could be allowed on the grounds laid down in the Sasi case law.
Whether an error apparent on the face of the record was found to exist in the impugned order.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Arabindakshan Nair And Anr.Referred¶19
(2017) 4 SCC 692 · Who else cites this
Parsion Devi v. Sumitri DeviReferred¶26
Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi
Krishna Murari Singh
The State of Bihar Housing Board
Chief Justice
Sudhir Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
