Dismissed

Satya Bir Singh & Anr. v. Haryana State Warehousing Corporation

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Sept 2014RA-CW/412/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single Bench dismissed a review application filed by a new lawyer against an order rejecting a writ petition regarding reservation of roster points in services. The court held review is not for rehearing or correcting factual errors but strictly for patent errors apparent on the face of the record under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

What did the court decide?

None; Review Application dismissed with no merit in the contentions raised by the petitioner.

Satya Bir Singh & Anr. Vs Haryana State… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Review Application No.412 of 2014 in C.W.P. No.17562 of 2010 Date of decision: 26.09.2014.

¶3

Satya Bir Singh and another

¶4

..Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Haryana State Ware Housing Corporation and another

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY

¶9

Present: Mr. D.S. Rawat, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶10

Daya Chaudhary, J. (Oral)

¶11

Satya Bir Singh and Kitab Singh filed CWP No.17562 of 2010 for direction to respondents to fill up the posts of Sub Divisional Engineer (Civil) as per roster point system outlined in the Haryana Warehousing Corporation (Office and Staff) Regulation, 1994 as amended by Notification dated 06.08.2004, whereby, roster points No.2 to 5 were reserved for Junior Engineer Diploma Holders having an experience of ten years. Said petition was dismissed vide order dated 30.06.2014.

¶12

Petitioners challenged the impugned order dated 30.06.2014 by way of filing LPA before Division Bench of this Court, which was dismissed as withdrawn to file review application before the

¶13

NEETU RANI 2014.11.04 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶14

Review Application No.412 of 2014 in C.W.P. No.17562 of 2010

¶15

¶16

Single Bench vide order dated 04.08.2014.

¶17

Thereafter, review Application was filed before this Court by raising various arguments.

¶18

Learned counsel for the review petitioners has raised various arguments that certain facts have wrongly been mentioned in the writ petition, which are sufficient to recall the order.

¶19

Admittedly, the advocate, who has filed review application was not counsel for the petitioners in writ petition and he cannot say that the arguments raised by the earlier counsel were not based on correct facts or vice verse. And as such the plea raised by the learned counsel for the review petitioners cannot be accepted.

¶20

Moreover, the limited scope is there in review. Review can be allowed only in rare cases and that also to correct clerical or arithmetical mistake. Even the review by subsequent lawyer, who has not argued earlier is deprecated by the Apex Court.

¶21

Review is maintainable only in case of discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him before the Court. Even after exercising due diligence or that come to their knowledge later on. Review is not rehearing of an original matter and the power of review cannot be confused with the power of the Court to correct all errors committed by the subordinate Court. Hon’ble Apex Court has held in Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 651 that in a review petition, the

¶22

NEETU RANI 2014.11.04 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶23

Review Application No.412 of 2014 in C.W.P. No.17562 of 2010

¶24

¶25

Court is not to re-appreciate the evidence to reach on different conclusion, even if that is possible.

¶26

Hon'ble the Apex Court in Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors., 1997(4) RCR (Civil) 458, has held as under: -

¶27

“7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh this Court opined:

¶28

"What, however, we are not 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 distinct 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

¶29

NEETU RANI 2014.11.04 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

Review Application No.412 of 2014 in C.W.P. No.17562 of 2010

¶31

¶32

vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard corrected, but lies only for patent error." (Emphasis ours)

¶33

8. Again, in Meera Bhanjia v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma this Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

¶34

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 review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 Civil Procedure Code it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has limited purpose and cannot be

¶35

NEETU RANI 2014.11.04 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶36

Review Application No.412 of 2014 in C.W.P. No.17562 of 2010

¶37

¶38

allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

¶39

Similarly, in case M/s Northern India Caterers (India)

¶40

Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, (1980) 2 SCC 167, Hon'ble the Apex Court has held as under: -

¶41

“8. It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan . For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing, the Court will review its judgment: G. L. Gupta v. D. N. Mehta . The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice: O. N. Mahindroo v. Distt. Judge Delhi. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Art. 137 of the Constitution, and that power is

¶42

NEETU RANI 2014.11.04 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶43

Review Application No.412 of 2014 in C.W.P. No.17562 of 2010

¶44

¶45

subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Article 145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Order 40 Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except "where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility": Sow Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib.

¶46

9. Now, besides the fact that most of the legal material so assiduously collected and placed before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General, who has now been entrusted to appear for the respondent, was never brought to our attention when the appeals were heard, we may also examine whether the judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶47

NEETU RANI 2014.11.04 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶48

Review Application No.412 of 2014 in C.W.P. No.17562 of 2010

¶49

¶50

Such an error exists if of two or more views canvassed on the point it is possible to hold that the controversy can be said to admit of only one of them. If the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view having regard to what the record states, it is difficult to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶51

Keeping in view the above mentioned settled law by the Hon'ble Apex Court, there is no merit in the contentions raised by the counsel for the review petitioners and the same is hereby dismissed.

¶52

26.09.2014 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) neetu JUDGE

¶53

NEETU RANI 2014.11.04 12:57 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Satya Bir Singh & Anr. v. Haryana State Warehousing Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satya Bir Singh & Anr. v. Haryana State Warehousing Corporation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Suresh Chand Vs Mam Raj and Others

Kartar Singh Vs State Ofpunjab

Davinder Singh Sodhi Vs State of Haryana

Gurcharan Singh Vs State of Punjab

Komal and Another Vs State of Punjab and Others

Parbhu Dayal Vs Nathu Ram and Others