R.P. No. 45 of 2015. Case: Kameshwar Sharma and Ors. Vs State of H.P. and Ors.. Himachal Pradesh High Court
| Case Number | R.P. No. 45 of 2015 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Sanjeev Bhushan, Senior Advocate and Rajesh Kumar, Advocate and For Respondents: Shrawan Dogra, Advocate General, Anup Rattan, Romesh Verma, Additional Advocate Generals and J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General |
| Judges | Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J. and Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. |
| Issue | Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 - Sections 22(3), 22(3)(f); Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XL Rules 1, XL; Order XLVII Rules 1, 47; Section 114; Constitution of India - Articles 137, 145, 226 |
| Judgement Date | March 28, 2017 |
| Court | Himachal Pradesh High Court |
Judgment:
Mansoor Ahmad Mir, C.J.
-
By the medium of this review petition, the review petitioners have invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in terms of the mandate of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short "CPC") seeking review of judgment and order, dated 23rd March, 2015, made by this Court in CWP No. 1282 of 2012, titled as Kameshwar Sharma & others versus State of Himachal Pradesh & others, whereby the writ petition filed by the petitioners came to be dismissed.
-
The respondents have filed objections and resisted the review petition on the grounds taken therein.
-
Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners was asked to show as to what was the mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. He argued that this Court has committed an illegality while making the judgment under review as the petitioners had not prayed for shifting of the headquarter of Gram Panchayat, Dadoghi.
-
Heard.
-
It is beaten law of the land that the power of review has to be exercised sparingly and as per the mandate of Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
-
A reference may be made to Section 114 CPC and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC herein:
114. Review. - Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved,-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Court, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.
ORDER XLVII
REVIEW
1. Application for review of judgment.-
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree on order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.
Explanation-The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.
-
One of us (Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice) as a Judge of the Jammu and Kashmir High Court, while sitting in Division Bench, authored a judgment in case titled as Muzamil Afzal Reshi versus State of J & K & Ors., Review (LPA) No. 16/2009, decided on 29th March, 2013, in which it was laid down that power of review is to be exercised in limited circumstances and, that too, as per the mandate of Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC. It was further held that the review petition can be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record. The error apparent on the face of record must be such which can be unveiled on mere looking at the record, without entering into the long drawn process of reasoning.
-
A Division Bench of this Court has also laid down the similar principle in Review Petition No. 4084 of 2013, titled as M/s. Harvel Agua India Private Limited versus State of H.P. & Ors., decided on 9th July, 2014, and observed that for review of a judgment, error must be apparent on the face of the record; not which has to be explored and that it should not amount to rehearing of the case. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 11 of the judgment herein:
"11. The error contemplated under the rule is that the same should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning. The wrong decision can be subject to appeal to a higher form but a review is not permissible on the ground that court proceeded on wrong proposition of law. It is not permissible for erroneous decision to be "re-heard and corrected." There is clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the former can be corrected only by a higher form, the latter can be corrected by exercise of review jurisdiction. A review of judgment is not maintainable if the only ground for review is that point is not dealt in correct perspective so long the point has been dealt with and answered. A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition of old and overruled arguments cannot create a ground for review. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order, which has the normal feature of...
To continue reading
Request your trial