This bench dismissed a review application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, holding that the principles laid down in Sasi (Dead) vs. Arabindakshan Nair establish that review cannot be used to correct an erroneous decision or function as an appeal.
The review application filed in Civil Review No.69 of 2017 was 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.69 of 2017 IN
LPA 639 of 2016
===========================================================
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Durga Nand Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalit Kishore, Sr. 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 27.1.2017 passed by the Division Bench in
Patna High Court C. REV. No.69 of 2017 dt.19-07-2017
2/3
L.P.A. No.639 of 2016.
In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sasi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. 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)
Patna High Court C. REV. No.69 of 2017 dt.19-07-2017
3/3
referring to Thungabhadra Industries Ltd., Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary and Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, held thus:
“9. 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 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 |
|---|---|
| CAVDATE | N/A |
| Uploading Date | 25.7.2017 |
| Transmission Date |
N/A |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the principles of law laid down in the Supreme Court judgment of Sasi allow for interference in the exercise of review jurisdiction.
Whether an erroneous decision can be reheard and corrected in review proceedings under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sasi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. Arabindakshan Nair And Anr.Relied on¶40
Sasi (Dead) Through Legal Representatives vs. Arabindakshan Nair And Anr., (2017) 4 SCC 692 · Who else cites this
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. V. State of A.P.Distinguished¶42
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. V. State of A.P.
Parsion Devi v. Sumitri DeviRelied on¶44
Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi
Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari ChoudharyReferred¶46
Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak SharmaReferred¶46
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma
Shahnawaz Anwar
The State of Bihar
Rajendra Menon
Sudhir Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
