Review Petition No. 47 of 2016. Case: Balbir Singh Vs State of H.P. and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court

Case NumberReview Petition No. 47 of 2016
Party NameBalbir Singh Vs State of H.P. and Ors.
CounselFor Appellant: Ritta Goswami, Advocate and For Respondents: Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, Anup Rattan, Romesh Verma, Addl. Advocate Generals and J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate
JudgesMansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. and Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLVII Rule 1; Section 114; Constitution of India - Article 226; Specific Relief Act, 1963 - Sections 34, 38, 39
Judgement DateApril 11, 2017
CourtHimachal Pradesh High Court

Judgment:

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.

  1. This petition under Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Civil Writ Rules 13 read with Original Side Rule 1.18 seeks review of the judgment passed by this Court on 26.4.2016 in LPA No. 172 of 2014 whereby the appeal filed by the review petitioner against the judgment of the learned writ Court came to be dismissed with costs of ` 10,000/-.

  2. It is averred that there is an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as this Court while deciding the appeal has erred in concluding that none of the parties had questioned the order of allotment of the shops and had further erred in concluding that the shop No. 18 had been allotted to the petitioner and in fact it was shop No. 17 that had been allotted in his favour.

  3. The official respondents have filed reply to this petition wherein it has been specifically averred that as regards the shop No. 17, the same was allotted to respondent No. 5 herein (original writ petitioner), whereas no shop was allotted to the review petitioner.

  4. Respondent No. 5 has filed separate reply wherein it is averred that the review petitioner was never allotted shop No. 17 as alleged, therefore, he had no right to remain in possession thereof.

  5. The learned writ Court had directed respondent No. 5 to be put in possession of shop No. 17 which admittedly was in possession of the review petitioner and said findings had been affirmed by us vide the impugned judgment.

  6. As noticed above, the only question required to be determined by this Court in LPA was whether the review petitioner in fact had a right to remain in possession of shop No. 17 and this question as observed earlier had been answered against the petitioner.

  7. However, before considering the case on merits, the scope of review is required to be considered. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 and Section 114 of CPC. There must be an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Similarly, wherein an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by way of review. Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".

  8. What would be the scope and ambit of review petition has been considered in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others (2013) 8 SCC 320 and thereafter the legal position has been summarized as follows:

    Summary of the Principles:

  9. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

    20.1. When the review will be maintainable:-

    (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

    (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

    (iii) Any other sufficient reason.

    The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., JT 2013 (8) SC 275.

    20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:-

    (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

    (ii) Minor...

To continue reading

Request your trial