Om Prakash – Vii, Member (J)
1. The instant Review Application has been filed by applicant against the order dated 27.04.2023 passed by this Tribunal in OA No.653 of 2021 – Anand Kumar Srivastava Vs. UOI & Ors. The OA was dismissed by this Tribunal vide order dated 27.04.2023. The operative portion of the order is reproduced below: -
“11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the light of the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid cases. OA is liable to be dismissed. Hence, it is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs”.
2. Along-with this Review Application, the review applicants have also filed Delay condonation Application bearing M.A. No. 330/3744/2024 for condoning the delay in filing the instant Review Application. The instant Review Application has been filed on 03.03.2024 after a lapse of more than 11 months. The grounds for delay in filing the Review Application as shown in the Affidavit for condonation of delay are found to be sufficient. Accordingly, the Delay condonation Application in filing Review Application is allowed.
3. I have carefully gone through the judgment and order under review and have also looked into the grounds taken for review. The grounds so raised by the review-applicant in their Review Application has already been raised in the O.A. and the same has already been dealt with, in detail, while passing the order under review. It is also noticed that the order under review was passed after hearing the both sides and the review applicant has failed to point out any error which is apparent on the face of record. Alongwith the Review Application, the review applicant has annexed a copy of order of Tehsildar Mirzapur regarding land less of the applicant, Pariwarik Membership Certificate and income certificate of the applicant. By taking the shelter of the above documents, the review applicant wants to review of the order passed in the O.A. It is trite principle of law that scope of review is very limited and review can be sought if there is an apparent error on face of record and no new evidence/documents can be adduced by reviewing the original order. On this score, the Review Application is not maintainable.
4. I may also state that if the plea or ground taken in the Review Application is accepted and the order is reviewed in favour of the review applicants, it would amount to an order which can be passed in writ or appellate jurisdiction only as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of cases. In the case of Meera Bhanja (Smt) Vs. Nirmala Kumar Choudhary (Smt.) reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170 it has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that “the Review petition can be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of record and not on any other ground. Any error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Re-appraisal of the entire evidence or error would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is not permissible” by way of review application. This is the spirit of order XLVII, Rule 1 of CPC as has been held in this judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.G. Derasari & others Vs. Union of India & Others reported in 2002 SCC (L&S) 756 it was observed therein that any attempt except to an attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any ground set-out in order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment. The Tribunal cannot proceed to reexamine the matter as if it is Original Application before it in the light of ratio given in Subash Vs. State of Maharastra & others reported in AIR 2002 SC 2537
6. In the case of Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others reported in (1997) 8 SCC -715, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“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 CPC 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 allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
10. Considered in the light of this settled position we fine that Sharma, J. clearly over-stepped the jurisdiction vested in the court under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The observation of Sharma, J. that "accordingly", the order in question is reviewed and it is held that the decree in question is reviewed and it is held that the decree in question was of composite nature wherein both mandatory and prohibitory injunction were provided" and as such the case was covered by Article the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the later only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. While passing the impugned order, Sharma, J. found the order in Civil Revision dated 25.4.1989 as an erroneous decision, though without saying so in so many words. Indeed, while passing the impugned order Sharma, J. did record that there was a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record which not of such a nature, "Which had to be detected by a long drawn process of reasons" and proceeded to set at naught the order of Gupta, J. However, mechanical use of statutorily sanctified phrases cannot detract from the real import of the order passed in exercise of the review jurisdiction. Recourse to review petition in the facts and circumstances of the case was not permissible. The aggrieved judgment debtors could have approached the higher forum through appropriate proceedings, to assail the order of Gupta, J. and get it set aside but it was not open to them to seek a "review of the order of petition. In this view of the matter, we are of the opinion that the impugned order of Sharma, J. cannot be sustained and accordingly accept this appeal and set aside the impugned order dated 6.3.1997.”
7. The Review is not an appeal in disguise as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of J. N.Lily Thomas Vs. Union of India. The relevant portion reads as under:-
“56. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise.”
8. In view of the legal proposition as narrated hereinabove, I do not find any merit in the Review Application and the same is accordingly dismissed under Circulation Rules itself.
