# Alok Saini v. Remote Sensing Application Centre U.P. & Anr

- **Citation:** (2013) 3 ILRA 1549
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2013-12-13
- **Case number:** Review Petition No.92 of 2012
- **Bench:** Rajiv Sharma, Vikram Singh Rathore
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/alok-saini-v-remote-sensing-application-centre-u-p-anr-42743
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

High Court Rules, Chapter V Rules 12
readwith Order 47 Rule I and section 114
of
C.P.C.-Review
whether
subsequent
judgment even by superior Court or
coordinal Bench would be basis for
review? held-'No'.

Held: Para-13
Keeping in view the law on this point, this
Court is of the considered view that the
subsequent decision of a co-ordinate
Bench would not be a ground to review the
judgment, which is the scope of appeal.

Case Law discussed:
MANU/PH/0162/1960;MANU/GJ/0074/1972;
MANU/KE/0042/1969;MANU/SC/0217/1963;
MANU/SC/1360/1997;MANU/SC/8039/2006;
MANU/HP/0001/1981.

## Text

3 All] Alok Saini Vs. Remote Sensing Application Centre U.P. & Anr.
1549
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: LUCKNOW 13.12.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE RAJIV SHARMA, J.
THE HON'BLE VIKRAM SINGH RATHORE, J.

Review Petition No.92 of 2012

Alok Saini... Petitioner
Versus
Remote Sensing Application Centre U.P.
& Anr ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Faisal Ahmad Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Dipak Seth

High Court Rules, Chapter V Rules 12
readwith Order 47 Rule I and section 114
of
C.P.C.-Review
whether
subsequent
judgment even by superior Court or
coordinal Bench would be basis for
review? held-'No'.

Held: Para-13
Keeping in view the law on this point, this
Court is of the considered view that the
subsequent decision of a co-ordinate
Bench would not be a ground to review the
judgment, which is the scope of appeal.

Case Law discussed:
MANU/PH/0162/1960;MANU/GJ/0074/1972;
MANU/KE/0042/1969;MANU/SC/0217/1963;
MANU/SC/1360/1997;MANU/SC/8039/2006;
MANU/HP/0001/1981.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Rajiv Sharma, J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
review petitioner, learned counsel for the
opposite party and perused the material
available on record.

2. The instant review petition has
been filed under Chapter V, Rule 12 of the
Allahabad High Court Rules for reviewing
the judgment and order dated 13.2.2012
passed in Writ Petition No. 27 (SB) of 2005
(Alok Saini Vs. Remote Sensing Application
Centre and another). In the aforesaid writ
petition, challenge of the review petitioner
was his suspension order. While disposing of
the aforesaid writ petition, this Court passed
the following orders:-

"It is pertinent to mention that in exercise
of the powers conferred upon the State
Government under Rule 23 (1) of Rules of
Association of the Centre, the State
Government
had
conferred
upon
the
Secretary, Science & Technology, the
administrative, financial and legal powers of
the Director of the Centre. Moreover, from the
record, it also comes out that the action taken
by the Secretary has been rectified by the
Governing Body. Thus, the assertion of the
petitioner that the impugned order is without
jurisdiction and non est, is not acceptable.

In view of the above, we do not find
any illegality or infirmity in the impugned
order of suspension. The writ petition is
dismissed accordingly. However, it will
be open to the opposite parties to pass
appropriate order of punishment as the
enquiry has already been concluded."

3. The instant review petition has
been filed inter alia on the ground that
Division Bench of this Court was ceased
with the same question regarding validity
of the order dated 13.2.2012 and vide
judgment and order dated 6.9.2013,
passed in Writ Petition No. 11 (SB) of
2004 (Amrednra Narayan Singh Vs.
Remote Sensing Application Centre,
Lucknow) passed the following orders:-

"103. In view of the facts and
circumstances
and
discussion,
made
1550 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
hereinabove, the finding is summarised as
under:-

(i) ................................

(ii) ................................

(iii) ...............................

(iv) ................................

(v) ...............................

(vi) ................................

(vii) ......................... The Division
Bench of this Court by judgment and
order passed in Writ Petition No. 1191 of
1991 (R.S. Chaturvedi Versus State of
U.P.) has rightly held that the government
lacks jurisdiction to interfere with the
functioning of the Centre and only the
Governing Council possess jurisdiction to
initiate
disciplinary
proceedings
and
punish an officer of the Centre.

105. the writ petitions are allowed. A
writ in the nature of certiorari is issued
quashing
the
impugned
orders
dated
14.10.2003
(Annexure
-1)
15.11.2003
(Annexure-2),
25.1.2003
(Annexure-3),
passed in writ petition No. 11(S/B) of 2004,
Office
Memorandum
dated
13.2.2004
(Annexure No.1 to the writ petition No.507
of 2004), Impugned order dated 15.11.2003
(Annexure No.1 to the writ petition No.1487
of 2003), impugned orders dated 15.11.2003
(Annexures 1 and 2), 14.10.2003 (Annexure
No.3 passed in writ petition No. 1486 of
2003), impugned orders dated 15.11.2003,
25.11.2003 (Annexures 1 and 2), 14.10.2003
(Annexure No.3 to writ petition No. 1599 of
2003) with consequential benefits."

4. It is submitted that the judgment
of co-ordinate Bench of this Court, dated
6.9.2013 fully covers the controversy
involved in the writ petition and on the
same basis, this review petition deserves
to be allowed.

5. Now the question that arise for
consideration of this Court is whether the
subsequent judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of the same Court or by a
superior Court would be a ground for
review of the judgment passed on merits.

6. Before proceeding further, We have
considered the case laws on the point and we
find that there were different opinion among
different High Courts, on the question whether
the subsequent contrary judgment by the same
court or by a superior Court on the point of
law can be treated as an error apparent on the
face of the record, for the purpose of review of
an earlier judgment. In Lachhmi Narain Balu
v.
Ghisa
Bihari
and
Anr.,
MANU/PH/0162/1960 the learned Single
Judge of the then Punjab High Court held that
the Court cannot review its judgment merely
because in a subsequent judgment different
view was expressed on the same subject matter.
In
P.N.
Jinabhai
v.
P.G.
Venidas
MANU/GJ/0074/1972, the learned Single
Judge of the Gujarat High Court considered the
question whether the Court can revise its view
on the question of pecuniary jurisdiction simply
because the same has been rendered doubtful in
the light of subsequent decision of the High
Court and answered the same in negative.
However, a contrary view was expressed in
Thadikulangar
Pylee's
son
Pathrose
v.
Ayyazhiveettil Lakshmi Amma's son Kuttan
and Ors MANU/KE/0042/1969. In that case,
the learned Single Judge of the Kerala High
Court opined that a subsequent decision
authoritatively declaring the law can be made
basis for reviewing an earlier judgment.

7. The law is settled on the point of the
review petitions are covered by order XLVII,
Rule 1 of the C.P.C. and Section 114 of the
C.P.C. Under order XLVII, Rule 1 C.P.C. a
judgment may be reviewed inter alia on the
3 All] Alok Saini Vs. Remote Sensing Application Centre U.P. & Anr.
1551
ground if there is a mistake apparent on the
face of record.

8. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharam v.
Aribam Pishak Sharam (supra), Hon'ble
Apex Court considered the scope of the High
Courts' power to review an order passed
under Article 226 of the Constitution,
referred to an earlier decision in Shivdeo
Singh
v.
State
of
Punjab
MANU/SC/0395/1961 and observed:

"It is true as observed by this Court in
Shivdeo Singh v. MANU/SC/0395/1961
State of Punjab, there is nothing in Article 226
of the Constitution to preclude a High Court
from exercising the power to review which is
inherent in every Court of plenary jurisdiction
to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct
grave and palpable errors committed by it.
But, there are definitive limits to the exercise
of the power of review. The power of review
may be exercised on the discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence was not within the
knowledge of the person seeking the review
or could not be produced by him at the time
when the order was made; it may be exercised
where some mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record is found; it may also be
exercised on any analogous ground. But, it
may not be exercised on the ground that the
decision was erroneous on merits. That would
be the province of a Court of appeal. A power
of review is not to be confused with appellate
power which may enable an Appellate Court
to correct all matters or errors committed by
the Subordinate Court."

9. Keeping in view the difference of
opinion of different courts on the point, an
explanation was added under Order
XLVII, Rule 1 by the amendment of the
C.P.C. by the Central Act No. 104 of
1976, which reads as under:-

"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."

10. This explanation was added on
the
recommendation
of
the
law
Commission to put an end to the
controversy which had arisen on the point
whether a judgment could be reviewed
merely on the ground that the decision on
a question of law on which the same was
founded has been reversed or modified by
the subsequent decision of a superior
Court. Almost all the High Courts, save
for the solitary exception of Kerala High
Court, were unanimous in their opinion
that the fact that the view of law taken in
a judgment has been altered by a
subsequent decision of a superior Court in
another case could not afford a valid
ground for the review of the judgment.

11. That a decision is erroneous in law
is certainly no ground for ordering review. If
the Court has decided a point and decided it
erroneously, the error could not be one
apparent on the face of the record or even
analogous to it. When, however, the court
disposes of a case without adverting to or
applying its mind to a provision of law which
gives it jurisdiction to act in a particular way,
that may amount to an error analogous to one
apparent on the face of the record sufficient
to bring the case within the purview of Order
XLVII, Rule 1, Civil Procedure Code.

In the case of Thungabhadra Industries
Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. MANU/SC/0217/1963
it was held that a review is by no means an
appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous
decision can be corrected.
1552 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

In Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri
Devi and Ors MANU/SC/1360/1997, it
was held as under:-

"Under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC a
judgment may be open to review inter alia if
there is a mistake 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 to 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". 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. A review
petition has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

In Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik
and Ors. MANU/SC/8039/2006, Hon'ble
Apex Court made a reference to the
explanation added to Order 47 by the
Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment)
Act, 1976 and held:

"In order to appreciate the scope of a
review, Section 114 CPC has to be read, but
this section does not even adumbrate the
ambit of interference expected of the court
since it merely states that it "may make such
order thereon as it thinks fit". The parameters
are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for the
purpose of this lis, permit the defendant to
press for a rehearing "on account of some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the
records or for any other sufficient reason".
The former part of the rule deals with a
situation attributable to the applicant, and the
latter to a jural action which is manifestly
incorrect or on which two conclusions are not
possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing
of the dispute because a party had not
highlighted all the aspects of the case or could
perhaps have argued them more forcefully
and/or cited binding precedents to the court
and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict. This
is amply evident from the Explanation to Rule
1 of Order 47 which states that 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. Where the order in question is
appealable the aggrieved party has adequate
and efficacious remedy and the court should
exercise the power to review its order with the
greatest circumspection."

The similar question was considered
by the Full Bench of Himachal Pradesh
High Court in the case of The Nalagarh
Dehati Co-operative Transport Soceity
Ltd., Nalagarh Vs. Beli Ram etc. reported
in MANU/HP/0001/1981 the question
before the Full Bench were as under:-

(i)
Where
after
a judgment
is
pronounced by a court, the Supreme Court or
a larger bench of the same court renders a
decision taking a different or contrary view
on a point covered by the said judgment; or

(ii) Where the court so pronouncing a
judgment has, for whatever reason,
missed to take into consideration a
decision of the Supreme Court or a High
Court taking a different or contrary view
on a point covered by the said judgment."

12.After considering the law on the point,
the Full Bench of Himachal Pradesh High
Court has held in paragraph no. 24 as under:-

"24. The result is that we will answer
the first part of the question in the
3 All] Ramrao Singh Vs. Usha Singh
1553
negative, that is, a subsequent decision of
the Supreme Court or a larger Bench of
the same court rendering a decision taking
a different or contrary view on a point
covered by the said judgment, does not
amount to a mistake or error apparent on
the face of the record. The answer to the
second part of the question is that failure
of the court to take into consideration an
existing decision of the Supreme Court
taking a different or contrary view on a
point covered by its judgment would
amount to a mistake or error apparent on
the face of the record. But a failure to take
into consideration a decision of the High
Court would not amount to any mistake or
error apparent on the face of the record."

13. Keeping in view the law on this
point, this Court is of the considered view that
the subsequent decision of a co-ordinate
Bench would not be a ground to review the
judgment, which is the scope of appeal.

14. Accordingly, the review on the
basis of a subsequent judgment of a coordinate Bench deciding the controversy
otherwise cannot be a ground to allow the
review petition.

15. As discussed above, this review
sans merits, deserves to be dismissed and
is hereby dismissed.
--------
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.11.2013

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE B. AMIT STHALEKAR, J.

First Appeal No. 467 of 2012

Ramrao Singh... Petitioner
Versus
Usha Singh... .Respondent
Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Arvind Kumar Singh, Sri R.K. Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
Sri Ali Hasan, Sri Ishtiyaq Ali

Hindu Marriage Act-1955-Section 28First Appeal against the order passed
under section 13 of Hindu Marriage Actby Civil Court-appeal under section 28 of
Hindu Marriage Act-not maintainable.

Held: Para-3-
From a perusal of the provisions of Section
28 of the Act, it is clear that no appeal lies
against an order passed under Section 24 of
the Act. It is not disputed by the learned
counsel for the appellant or by Sri Ishtiyaq
Ali , learned counsel for the respondent that
proceedings under Section 13 of the Act for
divorce are still pending in the civil court. It
is also admitted by both the parties that
these are not proceedings under Section 19
of the Family Court Act.

Case Law discussed:
2006 All. C.J. 1936

(Delivered by Hon'ble B. Amit Sthalekar, J.)

1. I have heard Sri Arvind Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the appellant
and Sri Istiyaq Ali, learned counsel for the
respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed under
Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act,
1955 against the impugned judgment
dated 2.7.2011 passed under Section 24 of
the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The
provision of appeal under the Hindu
Marriage Act , 1955 (hereinafter referred
to as the 'Act') is laid down under Section
28 of the Act which reads as under:-

"28. Appeals from decrees and orders.-
(1) All decrees made by the court in any
proceeding under this Act shall, subject to