Skip to main content

In review jurisdiction, Court shall interfere only when there is a glaring omission or patent mistake

In Amar Nath Vs. Jee Ram and Ors before Delhi High Court,  the Petitioner herein was the son of the Respondents. The Petitioner is 52 years of age and thus the Respondents must be more than 75 years of age. The suit of the Respondents for possession against the Petitioner in respect of their property, was decreed vide judgment. By way of the present petition, the Petitioner seeks review of the judgment. 

The term 'mistake or error apparent' by its very meaning implies an error which is apparent on the face of the record of the case and does not require comprehensive examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC). An order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the Court/Tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. In review jurisdiction, the court shall interfere only when there is a glaring omission or patent mistake or when a grave error has crept in the impugned judgment. 

The submissions and issues advanced by the Counsel of the Petitioner are erroneous on the face of law and cannot sustain. Error considered under the rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. No such error has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking review of the judgment. It has been time and again held that, the power of review jurisdiction can be exercised for the correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view and considering the same the Petitioner cannot be permitted to re-argue the very same points. No sufficient cause has been shown for reviewing the judgment. As the point is already dealt with and answered, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that, an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. 

All pleas raised before present Court were in fact addressed for and on behalf of the Petitioner which, after considering those pleas, the judgment in the was passed. Therefore, the Petitioner has not made out any case within the meaning of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC for reviewing the judgment. The petition is misconceived and bereft of any substance therefore, the present review petition is dismissed.

Comments

Post a Comment

Most viewed this month

Court approached in the early stages of arbitration will prevail in all other subsequent proceedings

In National Highway Authority of India v. Hindustan Steelworks Construction Limited, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court opined that once the parties have approached a certain court for relief under Act at earlier stages of disputes then it is same court that, parties must return to for all other subsequent proceedings. Language of Section 42 of Act is categorical and brooks no exception. In fact, the language used has the effect of jurisdiction of all courts since it states that once an application has been made in Part I of the Act then ―that Court alone shall have jurisdiction over arbitral proceedings and all subsequent applications arising out of that agreement and arbitral proceedings shall be made in that Court and in no other Court. Court holds that NHAI in present case cannot take advantage of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for explaining inordinate delay in filing present petition under Section 34 of this Act in this Court.
Post a Comment
Read more

The recovery of vehicles by the financier not an offence - SC

Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 8907  of 2009 Anup Sarmah (Petitioner) Vs Bhola Nath Sharma & Ors.(Respondents) The petitioner submitted that  respondents-financer had forcibly taken away the vehicle financed by them and  illegally deprived the petitioner from its lawful possession  and  thus,  committed  a crime. The complaint filed by the petitioner had been  entertained  by  the Judicial Magistrate (Ist Class), Gauhati (Assam) in Complaint Case  No.  608 of 2009, even directing the interim custody of the vehicle (Maruti  Zen)  be given to the petitioner vide order dated  17.3.2009.  The respondent on approaching the Guwahati High  Court against this order, the hon'ble court squashed the criminal  proceedings  pending   before  the  learned Magistrate. After hearing both sides, the Hon'ble Supreme Court decided on 30th...
7 comments
Read more

No Rebate For Stamp Duty Paid In Another State - Bombay HC

A three judge bench of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court (Bombay HC) in a recent judgment in the matter of Chief Controlling Revenue Authority, Maharashtra State, Pune and Superintendent of Stamp (Headquarters), Mumbai v Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai and Reliance Petroleum Limited, Gujarat1 has held that orders in case of a scheme of arrangement under Section 391 to 394 of the Companies Act, 1956 (Act) involving different High Courts in multiple states, are separate instruments in themselves. Accordingly, stamp duty would be payable on all the orders (and consequently, all the states) without the benefit of remission, rebate or set-off.
Post a Comment
Read more