-
by Admin
07 May 2024 2:49 AM
In a recent judgment delivered on 21st July 2023, the Honorable Justice Satyen Vaidya clarified the scope and ambit of review proceedings, emphasizing that a review petition should not be treated as an appeal in disguise. The judgment elaborated on the concept of “error apparent on the face of the record” and the principles governing review jurisdiction, highlighting the limited grounds on which a review can be sought.
Justice Vaidya emphasized that review proceedings are distinct from appeals and must be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The court stated, “A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be ‘an appeal in disguise’.” The court further cited precedents to support this distinction, reaffirming that review proceedings are not meant to correct erroneous decisions.
The judgment delved into the interpretation of “error apparent on the face of the record,” which allows a judgment to be open to review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Justice Vaidya clarified that for an error to qualify as “apparent,” it must be evident per se and not require a lengthy process of reasoning for detection. The court emphasized, “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.”
The court cited various judicial precedents to establish the principles governing review jurisdiction. It was clarified that the power of review vested in the tribunal is akin to that of a civil court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The tribunal can review its decision only on the specific grounds enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not on the ground of mere erroneous decision. The court stated, “The power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a court of appeal.”
Regarding the case at hand, the court observed that the petitioners sought a review of the judgment passed in a Regular Second Appeal. However, the court found no error apparent on the face of the record and rejected the contentions raised by the petitioners. Justice Vaidya clarified, “The persuasion by petitioners for reassessment on such contentions by the same court in review jurisdiction cannot be countenanced being impermissible in law.”
In conclusion, the judgment reiterated that the power of review is not to be confused with appellate powers. It exists to correct patent errors of law or fact, and it cannot be used as an inherent power or a substitute for an appeal. The court dismissed the review petition, highlighting that the powers of review are more restricted than that of an appeal, and the court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment.
Date of Decision: 21st July 2023
Smt. Churagu Devi (deceased) through her LRs and Ors. vs Versus Ram Lal
