In a dismissed review petition, the High Court of Rajasthan held that the petition was not maintainable as it sought to correct a decision based on reasoning rather than a patent error apparent on the face of the record.
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.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
D.B. Writ Review No. 20 / 2016
Sawai Singh Rathore s/o Late Sh. B.S.Rathore, aged about 54 years, at present working as Branch Manager, B.R.G.B. Branch – Chitamba, District Bhilwara.
----Petitioner
Versus
Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank, Head Office, Ajmer through its Regional Manager, Regional Office, Bhilwara.
----Respondent
_____________________________________________________ For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ritu Raj Singh. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anil Bhandari.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANGEET LODHA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN BHANSALI
Order
25/07/2017
This review petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking review of the judgment dated 17/12/2015 passed by this Court, whereby, the appeals filed by the respondent Bank were allowed and order dated 15/12/2006 passed by the learned Single Judge was set aside and the writ petitions filed by the petitioners were dismissed.
The review petition has been filed inter alia contending that the judgments in the case of Chairman, Rushikulya Gramya Bank vs. Bisawamber Patro & Ors. : ( 2013) 4 SCC 376 and Yogesh Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors. : AIR 2013 SC 3372 were wrongly applied.
Various submissions were made seeking to distinguish the
(2 of 2)
[WRW-20/2016]
said judgments.
We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record.
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. Govt. of A.P. : AIR 1964 SC 1372 laid down that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.
Again in Parsion Devi vs. Sumitri Devi : (1997) 8 SCC 715 , it was laid down as under:-
“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 above judgments clearly spell out the nature, scope and ambit of power of review to be exercised. The error has to be self evident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning, as has been attempted by counsel for the petitioner.
In view thereof, no case of review of the judgment dated 17/12/2015 is made out.
The review petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(ARUN BHANSALI)J. (SANGEET LODHA)J.
Baweja/1
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review is maintainable when the review petition contends that prior Supreme Court judgments were wrongly applied.
Whether the alleged errors constitute patent errors apparent on the face of the record rather than mere errors requiring reasoning.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Chairman, Rushikulya Gramya Bank vs. Bisawamber Patro & Ors.Referred¶14
Chairman, Rushikulya Gramya Bank vs. Bisawamber Patro & Ors.: (2013) 4 SCC 376 · Who else cites this
Yogesh Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors.Referred¶14
Yogesh Yadav vs. Union of India & Ors.: AIR 2013 SC 3372 · Who else cites this
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. Govt. of A.P.Explained¶20
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. Govt. of A.P.: AIR 1964 SC 1372 · Who else cites this
Parsion Devi vs. Sumitri DeviExplained¶21
Parsion Devi vs. Sumitri Devi: (1997) 8 SCC 715 · Who else cites this
Sawai Singh Rathore
Baroda Rajasthan Gramin Bank
Sangeet Lodha
Arun Bhansali
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
