Civil procedure Code, 1908 – S.114 r/w Or XLVII – Review Application – Maintainability of – Held: s.114 r/w Or XLVII makes it clear that a review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason – The error must be apparent on the face of the record and not one which has to be searched out – The power of review is not to be confused with the appellate power which enables the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate Court – Under the review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter – There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record – An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction – In the present case, nothing have prevented the respondents from filing the certified copies of the revenue records even earlier, but they elected to file only photocopies of the very same surrender proceedings – At no stage a plea was taken by the respondents with regard to the discovery of new documents which could have been produced by them after due diligence – Several opportunities were available to the respondents to file authenticated copies of the revenue records, firstly, when respondents challenged ex-parte order of Appellate authority , secondly, when Appellate authority reconsidered the appeals, thirdly, when respondent preferred a second set of revision petition, fourthly, when respondent filed two review petitions, and lastly, when respondent preferred Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court – Moreover, no averments were made by the respondents in the second set of review to the effect that they could not trace the documents in question earlier – Therefore, nonproduction of the relevant documents on the part of the respondents at the appropriate stage cannot be a ground for seeking review of the judgment when five opportunities were available to them for production of the said documents – Even otherwise, recourse to successive review petitions against the same order is impermissible when the respondents have miserably failed to draw the attention of the Court to any circumstances that would entitle them to invoke review jurisdiction – Thus, Second set of review petition ought to be rejected by High Court.
Allowing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. It has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court’s jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as “for any other sufficient reason”. The said phrase has been explained to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule” [Para 26][65-G-H; 66-A-D]
2. The Single Judge of the High Court has taken great pains to discuss the three circumstances available under Order XLVII CPC for maintaining a review application and observed that in the instant case, the respondents had stated before this Court that they had in their possession, genuine documents relating to surrender of the protected tenancy rights in respect of the subject land and in view of the said submission, the petitions for Special Leave to Appeal were disposed of with an observation that if the respondents were able to obtain such documents, it would be open to them to file a review petition before the High Court. What is relevant is that this Court had even then declined to interfere with the findings on merits returned by the High Court vide Judgment dated 09th July, 2013; nor was the review order dated 20th February, 2014, interfered with. Under the garb of the liberty granted to them to approach the High Court again, all that the respondents have done is to obtain certified copies of the revenue records in respect of the subject land and enclosed them with the second set of review petitions. This is so when photocopies of the said documents had been filed by them earlier. [Para 27][66-E-H]
3. Nothing prevented the respondents from filing the certified copies of the revenue records even earlier, but they elected to file only photocopies of the very same surrender proceedings along with the revision petitions that were ultimately dismissed by the High Court vide common judgment dated 9th July, 2013. The above chronology of events gains significance as it goes to amply demonstrate that several opportunities were available to the respondents if they really wished to file authenticated copies of the revenue records relating to the purported surrender proceedings before the Tehsildar which they did not avail of, for reasons best known to them. The first opportunity arose when the respondents challenged the ex parte order dated 2nd April, 2005 passed by the Appellate Authority when they filed two Civil Revision Petitions which were allowed and the matter was remanded back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration; the second opportunity arose when the Appellate Authority re-considered the appeals remitted by the High Court and passed an order dated 23rd March, 2013, in favour of the predecessors-in-interest of the appellant; the third opportunity arose when the respondents preferred a second set of Civil Revision Petitions assailing the order dated 23rd March, 2013 that culminated in the common judgment and order dated 9th July, 2013 passed by the High Court; the fourth opportunity arose when the respondents filed two review applications for seeking review of the common judgment and order dated 9th July, 2013, that came to be dismissed vide order dated 20th February, 2014; and the fifth opportunity arose when the respondents preferred petitions for special leave to appeal before this Court being aggrieved by the common judgment and orders dated 9th July, 2013 and the review order dated 20th February, 2014 passed by the High Court. [Paras 28 and 31][67-B; 69-F-H; 70-A-B]
4. Nothing has been stated on affidavit to substantiate the plea taken by the respondents at such a belated stage that the documents sought to be filed by them with the second set of review petitions had come to light after passing of the judgment and order dated 9th July, 2013. Under the garb of the liberty granted to them, the respondents have tried to fill in the glaring loopholes and introduce evidence in the review proceedings that was all along in their power and possession and ought to have seen the light of the day much earlier. In fact, it appears that the Civil Revision Petitions were originally argued to the hilt on several other grounds, not limited just to the revenue record, which were all considered and turned down as meritless. Therefore, we have no hesitation in holding that non-production of the relevant documents on the part of the respondents at the appropriate stage cannot be a ground for seeking review of the judgment and order dated 9th July, 2013 particularly, when five opportunities enumerated in para 31 above, were available to them for production of the said documents, which were all frittered away, one by one. [Para 34][71-E-G]
5. Even otherwise, recourse to successive review petitions against the same order is impermissible more so, when the respondents have miserably failed to draw the attention of this Court to any circumstances that would entitle them to invoke review jurisdiction within the ambit of the Rules. Under the rules, the respondents were not required to produce “genuine” documents but new documents/evidence that was not within their knowledge and could not have been so even after exercise of due diligence, which could have turned the tables in their favour. Nor has any error apparent on the face of the record been brought out by them. [Para 35][72-A-B]
Babboo Alias Kalyandas and Others v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1979) 4 SCC 74; Sakuru v. Tanaji (1985) 3 SCC 590 : [1985] 2 Suppl. SCR 109; Dharappa v. Bijapur Coop. Milk Products Societies Union Limited (2007) 9 SCC 109 : [2007] 5 SCR 729 – referred to.
Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others (1980) Supp SCC 562; Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others (1997) 8 SCC 715 : [1997] 4 Suppl. SCR 470; Lilly Thomas and Others v. Union of India and Others (2000) 6 SCC 224 : [2000] 3 SCR 1081; Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and Others (2005)
6 SCC 651 : [2005] 2 Suppl. SCR 517; Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd.(2006) 5 SCC 501 : [2006] 3 Suppl. SCR 409; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others (2013) 8 SCC 320 : [2013] 11 SCR 25; Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (1979) 4 SCC 389; State of West Bengal and Others v. Kamal Sengupta and Another (2008) 8 SCC 612 : [2008] 10 SCR 4; S. Nagaraj and Others v. State of Karnataka and Another (1993) 4 Supp SCC 595 : [1993] 2 Suppl. SCR 1; Patel Narshi Thakershi and Others v. Shri Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji (1971)
3 SCC 844; Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and Others v. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others (2020) SCC Online SC 896; Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram and Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others – relied on.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.