# Manoj Kumar Mahato & Ors v. The Union of India & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 5 ILRA 1066
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-02-25
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Review Application No. 379 of 2021
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Prakash Padia
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/manoj-kumar-mahato-ors-v-the-union-of-india-ors-48403
- **Pages:** 11

## Headnote

Sri Rajnish Kumar, Sri Devendra Kumar
Tripathi

A.
Practice
&
Procedure
-
Review
Petition - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 -
An
application
for
review
is
more
restricted than that of an appeal and the
Court of review has limited jurisdiction
as to the definite limit mention in Order
47 Rule 1 CPC itself. The power of
review
cannot
be
exercised
as
an
inherent power nor can an appellate
power can be exercised in the guise of
power of review. (Para 12)
Review Application Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

1066 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
(2022)05ILR A1066
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 25.02.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE PRAKASH PADIA, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 379 of 2021
In
Writ-A No. 5939 of 2021

Manoj Kumar Mahato & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
The Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, Sri Anoop Singh,
Sri Ashok Kumar Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri Rajnish Kumar, Sri Devendra Kumar
Tripathi

A.
Practice
&
Procedure
-
Review
Petition - Civil Procedure Code, 1908 -
Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 -
An
application
for
review
is
more
restricted than that of an appeal and the
Court of review has limited jurisdiction
as to the definite limit mention in Order
47 Rule 1 CPC itself. The power of
review
cannot
be
exercised
as
an
inherent power nor can an appellate
power can be exercised in the guise of
power of review. (Para 12)
Review Application Rejected. (E-10)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Patel Narshi Thakershi Vs Pradyumansinghji
Arjunsinghji (1971) 3 SCC 844

2. Rajah Kotagiri Venkata Subbamma Rao Vs
Rajah Vellanki Venkatrama Rao (1899-1900) 27
IA 197
3. Hari Shankar Pal Vs Anath Nath Mitter 1949
FCR 36

4. Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs Mar
Poulose Athanasius AIR 1954 SC 526

5. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs Govt. of A.P.
AIR 1964 SC 1372

6. Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs Aribam Pishak
Sharma (1979) 4 SCC 389

7. Shivdeo Singh Vs St. of Punjab AIR 1963 S.C. 1909

8. K. Ajit Babu Vs U.O.I. (1997) 6 SCC 473

9. Parsion Devi Vs Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC
715

10. Haridas Das Vs Usha Rani Banik (2006) 4
SCC 78

11. Ajit kumar Rath Vs St. of Orissa (1999) 9
SCC 596

12. St. of Har. Vs M.P. Mohla (2007) 1 SCC 457

13. Gopal Singh Vs St. Cadre Forest Officers'
Assn. (2007) 9 SCC 369

14. Lily Thomas Vs U.O.I. (2000) 6 SCC 224

15. Inderchand Jain Vs Motilal (2009) 14 SCC
663

16. T.C. Basappa Vs T. Nagappa AIR 1954 SC 440

17. Hari Vishnu Kamath Vs Ahmad Ishaque AIR
1955 SCC 233

18. Meera Bhanja Vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhary
(1995) 1 SCC 170

19. State of West Bengal & Ors. Vs Kamal
Sengupta & anr. (2008) 8 SCC 612

20. Gopabandhu Biswal Vs Krishna Chnadra
Moohanty (1998) 4 SCC 447

21. Chhajju Ram Vs Neki AIR 1922 PC 112
(Delivered by Hon'ble Prakash Padia,
J.)
Order on Delay Condonation
Application No.Nil of 2021
5 All. Manoj Kumar Mahato & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
1067

1. Heard.

2. Cause shown for the delay in filing
the review application is sufficient. The
delay is condoned.

3. The application is allowed.

Order on Review Application No.379 of
2021

1. Heard Shri Ashok Kumar
Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners
and Shri Devendra Kumar Tripathi, learned
counsel appearing on behalf of respondentUnion of India.

2. This application seeks review of
the judgment and order dated 16.06.2021
passed in Writ A No. 5939 of 2021 (Manoj
Kumar Mahto and 8 Others vs. Union of
India and 6 Others) whereby the petitioners
petition was dismissed.

3. Facts in brief are that an Original
Application was filed by the petitioners
before the Central Administrative Tribunal,
Allahabad Bench Allahabad being Original
Application No. 0642 of 2019. Original
Application was filed challenging the order
dated 27.12.2018 endorse vide letter dated
16.05.2019 issued by the Chief Crew
Controller
(Operating),
East
Central
Railway, Mugalsarai and Gaya. The
directions were also sought for excluding
the name of the petitioners from prepromotion training list for the post of Loco
Pilot (Goods) dated 3.06.2019 and that they
(the applicants) be continued as Loco Pilot
(shunting).

4. The case of the petitioners before
the Central Administrative Tribunal was
that there exists a promotional channel for
the Assistant Loco Pilot/Shunters/ET to
post of Loco Pilot (Goods). The petitioners
being within the zone of consideration were
found suitable for pre-promotion training, a
pre-requisite for promotion vide order Estb.
No. B63/2019 dated 3.6.2019. Petitioners
tendered their collective refusal which was
tentatively
accepted
by
Sr.
DEE
(Ops)/DMEs/Power.
However,
the
Authority senior in hierarchy, i.e., Principal
Chief Electrical Engineer, East Central
Railway vide Communication DO.No.
ECR/ELE/OP/370
dated
27.12.2018
advised the Divisional Railway Manager,
Mugalsarai Division, East Central Railway
to withdraw the acceptance of refusal and
the incumbents be immediately sent for
next pre-promotional training programme
at their associated training centers. The said
DO resulted in issuance of communication
dated 16.5.2019.

5. The following findings were
recorded by the Central Administrative
Tribunal while rejecting the applications
filed by the petitioners:-

"5. In our considered view, the
impugned communication is based on
sound reason of serving larger public
interest and does not call for any
interference. There is more than adequate
justification for the decision to post the
applicants on operational duties after
prescribed training. The applicants have
enjoyed the benefit of choosing to remain
on the post of their choice for long
enough and do not deserve the luxury of
this choice throughout their service
career. A public utility like the railways
is to run in the interest of the public, and
this
requires
effective
manning
of
operational posts. On the other hand, the
applicants' demand is purely confined to
their
own
personal
comfort
and
convenience.
Moreover,
the
reasons
given by the applicants for refusal of
1068 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
promotion are vague and do not justify a
sympathetic consideration. It is ironic
that the applicants have chosen to agitate
their promotion and not a denial of it."

6. Aggrieved against the aforesaid,
the petitioners have preferred the writ
petition before this Court being Writ A
No. 5939 of 2021 Manoj Kumar Mahto
And 8 Others vs. Union of India And 6
Others). The writ petition was dismissed
while recording the following findings:-

"Though submissions similar to
those before the Tribunal are reiterated;
however, in absence of any Rules or
Regulations facilitating the refusal to
follow the departmental orders issued by
the
superior
Authorities,
being
commended at we are not inclined to
cause any indulgence with the findings by
Tribunal that in public interest the
respondents were justified in recalling of
the permission by authority to refuse
promotion."

7. In this view of the matter, the writ
Court was not inclined to cause any
indulgence with the findings of the
Tribunal on the ground that in public
interest the respondents were justified in
recalling
of
the
permission
by
the
authorities to refuse permission.

8. Aggrieved against the aforesaid
judgment passed by the Division Bench of
this Court, the petitioners have preferred
the present review petition.

9. It is argued by the counsel for the
petitioners that the order passed by the
Central
Administrative
Tribunal
dated
26.03.2021 was passed without recording any
findings. It is further argued that the higher
Court has no occasion to appreciate or
adjudicate as to how Central Administrative
Tribunal has dealt the issue raised by the
petitioners. It is further argued that while
passing the judgment, this Court has ignored
the material aspects of the matter and
committed error apparent on the place on
record while dismissing the writ petition in
limine.

10. We have gone through the grounds
taken in Review Application, which virtually
constitutes an attempt to re-argue the matter
which cannot be done in the garb of review.

11. It is well settled law that the power
of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of
Civil Procedure is very limited and it may be
exercised only on the ground that :-

"(1) Discovery of new and
important matter or evidence which, after
the exercise of due diligence, was not
within his knowledge or could not be
produced by him at the time when the
decree was passed.

(2) Order made on account of
some mistake.

(3) Error apparent on the face of
the record, or for any other sufficient
reason."

12. To appreciate the scope of review,
it would be proper for this Court to discuss
the object and ambit of Section 114 CPC as
the same is a substantive provision for
review when a person considering himself
aggrieved either by a decree or by an order
of Court. From the bare reading of Section
114 CPC, it appears that the said
substantive power of review under Section
114 CPC has not laid down any condition
as the condition precedent in exercise of
power of review nor the said Section
imposed any prohibition on the Court for
exercising its power to review its decision.
An application for review is more restricted
5 All. Manoj Kumar Mahato & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
1069
than that of an appeal and the Court of
review has limited jurisdiction as to the
definite limit mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1
CPC itself. The powers of review cannot be
exercised as an inherent power nor can an
appellate power can be exercised in the
guise of power of review.

13. The dictionary meaning of the
word "review" is "the act of looking after
something again with a view of correction
or improvement". It cannot be denied that
the review is the creation of a statute. In the
case of Patel Narshi Thakershi vs.
Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (1971)
3 SCC 844, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has
held that the power of review is not an
inherent power. It must be conferred by law
either
specifically
or
by
necessary
implication. The review is also not an
appeal in disguise.

14. We may now notice some of the
judicial precedents in which Section 114
read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and/or
Section
22(3)(f)
of
the
Central
Administrative Act have been interpreted
and limitations on the power of the civil
court/tribunal
to
review
its
judgment/decision have been identified.

15. In Rajah Kotagiri Venkata
Subbamma Rao v. Rajah Vellanki
Venkatrama Rao (1899-1900) 27 IA 197
the Privy Council interpreted Sections 206
and 623 of the Civil Procedure Code and
observed: (IA p.205)

"... Section 623 enables any of the
parties to apply for a review of any decree
on the discovery of new and important
matter and evidence, which was not within
his knowledge, or could not be produced by
him at the time the decree was passed, or
on account of some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record, or for
any other sufficient reason. It is not
necessary to decide in this case whether the
latter words should be confined to reasons
strictly
ejusdem
generic
with
those
enumerated, as was held in Roy Meghraj v.
Beejoy Gobind Burral, ILR (1875) 1 Cal
197. In the opinion of Their Lordships, the
ground of amendment must at any rate be
something which existed at the date of the
decree, and the section does not authorise
the review of a decree which was right
when it was made on the ground of the
happening
of
some
subsequent
event."(emphasis added)

16. In Hari Sankar Pal v. Anath
Nath Mitter, 1949 FCR 36 a five-Judge
Bench
of
the
Federal
Court
while
considering the question whether the
Calcutta High Court was justified in not
granting relief to non-appealing party,
whose position was similar to that of the
successful appellant, held: (FCR p. 48)

"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 47 Rule 1, Civil
Procedure Code."

17. In Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius
AIR 1954 SC 526 the Hon'ble Supreme
Court
interpreted
the
provisions
contained in the Travancore Code of
1070 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Civil Procedure which are analogous to
Order 47 Rule 1 and observed:

"32. ... Under the provisions in
the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure
which is similar in terms to Order 47
Rule 1 of our Code of Civil Procedure,
1908, the court of review has only a
limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the
definitive limits fixed by the language
used therein.

It may allow a review on three
specified grounds, namely,

(i)
discovery
of
new
and
important matter or evidence which, after
the exercise of due diligence, was not
within the applicant's knowledge or could
not be produced by him at the time when
the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or
error apparent on the face of the record
and (iii) for any other sufficient reason.

It has been held by the Judicial
Committee that the words ''any other
sufficient reason' must mean ''a reason
sufficient on grounds, least analogous to
those specified in the rule'."

18. In Thungabhadra Industries
Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. AIR 1964 SC 1372 it
was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court
that a review is by no means an appeal in
disguise whereof an erroneous decision can
be corrected.

19. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v.
Aribam Pishak Sharma (1979) 4 SCC
389 the Hon'ble Supreme 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 AIR 1963 S.C. 1909 and observed:
(Aribam Tuleshwar case (Supra), SCC p.
390, para 3)

"3. ... It is true as observed by this
Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab
(Supra), there is nothing in Article 226 of the
Constitution to preclude a High Court from
exercising the power of review which inheres
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 powers which may
enable an appellate court to correct all
manner
of
errors
committed
by
the
subordinate court."

20. In K. Ajit Babu v. Union of
India, (1997) 6 SCC 473, it was held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court that even
though Order 47 Rule 1 is strictly not
applicable to the tribunals, the principles
contained therein have to be extended to
them, else there would be no limitation on
the power of review and there would be no
certainty or finality of a decision. A slightly
different
view
was
expressed
in
Gopabandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandra
Mohanty, (1998) 4 SCC 447). In that case
it was held that the power of review
granted to the tribunals is similar to the
power of a civil court under Order 47 Rule
1.
5 All. Manoj Kumar Mahato & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
1071

21. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi
(1997) 8 SCC 715 it was held by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court that: (SCC p. 716)

"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 of 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 latter 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'."

22. In Haridas Das v. Usha Rani
Banik, (2006) 4 SCC 78 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court made a reference to the
Explanation added to Order 47 by the Code
of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976
and held:

"13. 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 purposes 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."

23. In Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of
Orissa, (1999) 9 SCC 596, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reiterated that power of
review vested in the Tribunal is similar to the
one conferred upon a civil court and held:
(SCC p. 608, paras 30-31)

"30. The provisions extracted
above indicate that the power of review
available to the Tribunal is the same as has
been given to a court under Section 114 read
with Order 47 CPC. The power is not
absolute and is hedged in by the restrictions
indicated in Order 47. The power can be
exercised on the application of a person on
the discovery of new and important matter or
evidence which, after the exercise of due
diligence, was not within his knowledge or
could not be produced by him at the time
when the order was made. The power can
also be exercised on account of some mistake
or error apparent on the face of the record or
1072 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for any other sufficient reason. A review
cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a
fresh hearing or arguments or correction of
an erroneous view taken earlier, that is to
say, the power of review can be exercised
only for correction of a patent error of law or
fact which stares in the face without any
elaborate
argument
being
needed
for
establishing it. It may be pointed out that the
expression ''any other sufficient reason' used
in Order 47 Rule 1 means a reason
sufficiently analogous to those specified in
the Rule.
 31. Any other attempt, except 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."

24. In the case of Haridas Das vs.
Usha Rani Banik (Smt.) and Others,
(2006) 4 SCC 78 while considering the
scope and ambit of Section 114 CPC read
with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is observed
and held in paragraph 14 to 18 as under:

"14. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala
Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170 it
was held that:

"8. It is well settled that the
review proceedings are not by way of an
appeal and have to be strictly confined to
the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1
CPC. In connection with the limitation of
the powers of the court under Order 47
Rule
1,
while
dealing
with
similar
jurisdiction available to the High Court
while seeking to review the orders under
Article 226 of the Constitution, this Court,
in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam
Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389
speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has
made the following pertinent observations:

''It is true there is nothing in Article
226 of the Constitution to preclude the High
Court from exercising the power of review
which inheres 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 manner of errors committed by the
subordinate court.' "

15. A perusal of Order 47 Rule 1
shows that review of a judgment or an
order could be sought: (a) from the
discovery of new and important matters or
evidence which after the exercise of due
diligence was not within the knowledge of
the applicant; (b) such important matter or
evidence could not be produced by the
applicant at the time when the decree was
passed or order made; and (c) on account
of some mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record or any other sufficient
reason."

25. In State of Haryana v. M.P.
Mohla, (2007) 1 SCC 457 the Hon'ble
Supreme Court held as under: (SCC pp.
465-66, para 27)
5 All. Manoj Kumar Mahato & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
1073

"27. A review petition filed by the
appellants herein was not maintainable.
There was no error apparent on the face of
the record. The effect of a judgment may
have to be considered afresh in a separate
proceeding
having
regard
to
the
subsequent cause of action which might
have arisen but the same by itself may not
be a ground for filing an application for
review."

26. In Gopal Singh v. State
Cadre Forest Officers' Assn., (2007) 9
SCC 369 the Hon'ble Supreme Court held
that after rejecting the original application
filed by the appellant, there was no
justification for the Tribunal to review its
order and allow the revision of the
appellant. Some of the observations made
in that judgment are extracted below: (SCC
p. 387, para 40)

"40. The learned counsel for the
State also pointed out that there was no
necessity whatsoever on the part of the
Tribunal to review its own judgment. Even
after the microscopic examination of the
judgment of the Tribunal we could not find
a single reason in the whole judgment as to
how the review was justified and for what
reasons. No apparent error on the face of
the record was pointed, nor was it
discussed. Thereby the Tribunal sat as an
appellate authority over its own judgment.
This was completely impermissible and we
agree with the High Court (Sinha, J.) that
the Tribunal has travelled out of its
jurisdiction to write a second order in the
name of reviewing its own judgment. In fact
the learned counsel for the appellant did
not address us on this very vital aspect."

27. In the case of Lily Thomas vs.
Union of India, (2000) 6 SC 224, it is
observed and held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court 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.

28. It is further observed in this
judgment that the words "any other
sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47
Rule 1 CPC must mean "a reason
sufficient on grounds at least analogous
to those specified in the rule" as was held
in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC
112 and approved by the Hon'ble
Supreme Courtthis Court in Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos vs Most Rev. Mar
Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526.

29. In the case of Inderchand Jain
vs. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663 in
paragraphs 7 to 11 it is observed and held
by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:

"7. Section 114 of the Code of
Civil Procedure (for short "the Code")
provides for a substantive power of
review by a civil court and consequently
by the appellate courts. The words
"subject
as
aforesaid"
occurring
in
Section 114 of the Code mean subject to
such conditions and limitations as may be
prescribed as appearing in Section 113
thereof and for the said purpose, the
procedural conditions contained in Order
47 of the Code must be taken into
consideration. Section 114 of the Code
although
does
not
prescribe
any
limitation on the power of the court but
such limitations have been provided for
in Order 47 of the Code; Rule 1 whereof
reads as under:
 "17. The power of a civil court to
review its judgment/decision is traceable in
Section 114 CPC. Tjhe grounds on which
1074 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
review can be sought are enumerated in
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which reads as
under:

1. Application for review of
judgment.--(1) Any person considering
himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from
which an appeal is allowed, but from which
no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from
which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference
from a Court of Small Causes, and who,
from the discovery of new and important
matter or evidence which, after the exercise
of due diligence, was not within his
knowledge or could not be produced by
him at the time when the decree was passed
or order made, or on account of some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record, or for any other sufficient reason,
desires to obtain a review of the decree
passed or order made against him, may
apply for a review of judgment of the court
which passed the decree or made the order.'
"

8. An application for review
would lie inter alia when the order suffers
from an error apparent on the face of the
record and permitting the same to continue
would lead to failure of justice. In Rajendra
Kumar v. Rambai this Court held: (SCC p.
514, para 6) "6. The limitations on exercise
of the power of review are well settled. The
first
and
foremost
requirement
of
entertaining a review petition is that the
order, review of which is sought, suffers
from any error apparent on the face of the
order and permitting the order to stand will
lead to failure of justice. In the absence of
any such error, finality attached to the
judgment/order cannot be disturbed."

9. The power of review can also be
exercised by the court in the event discovery
of new and important matter or evidence
takes place which despite exercise of due
diligence was not within the knowledge of
the applicant or could not be produced by
him at the time when the order was made. An
application for review would also lie if the
order has been passed on account of some
mistake.

Furthermore, an application for
review shall also lie for any other sufficient
reason.

10. It is beyond any doubt or
dispute that the review court does not sit in
appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the
matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes
an exception to the general rule that once a
judgment is signed or pronounced, it should
not be altered. It is also trite that exercise of
inherent jurisdiction is not invoked for
reviewing any order.

11. Review is not appeal in
disguise. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India
this Court held: (SCC p. 251, para 56) "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."

30. What can be said to be an error
apparent on the face of the proceedings has
been dealt with and considered by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of T.C.
Basappa vs. T.Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC
440. It is held that such an error is an error
which is a patent error and not a mere
wrong decision. In the case of Hari Vishnu
Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955
SC 233, it is observed as under:

"It is essential that it should be
something more than a mere error; it must
be one which must be manifest on the face
of the record. The real difficulty with
5 All. Manoj Kumar Mahato & Ors. Vs. The Union of India & Ors.
1075
reference to this matter, however, is not so
much in the statement of the principle as in
its application to the facts of a particular
case. When does an error cease to be mere
error, and become an error apparent on
the face of the record? Learned counsel on
either side were unable to suggest any
clear-cut rule by which the boundary
between the two classes of errors could be
demarcated."

31. In the case of Parsion Devi vs.
Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715 in
paragraph 7 to 9 it is observed and held by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:

"7. It is well settled that review
proceedings have to be strictly confined to
the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1
CPC. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v.
Govt. of A.P., AIR 1964 SC 1372 this Court
opined:

"What, however, we are now
concerned with is whether the statement in the
order of September 1959 that the case did not
involve any substantial question of law is an
''error apparent on the face of the record'). The
fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held
on an identical state of facts that a substantial
question of law arose would not per se be
conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be
erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was
wrong, it would not follow that it was an ''error
apparent on the face of the record', for there is
a distinction which is real, though it might not
always be capable of exposition, between a
mere erroneous decision and a decision which
could be characterised as vitiated by ''error
apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in
disguise whereby an erroneous decision is
reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent
error."

32. Again, in Meera Bhanja v.
Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, (1995) 1
SCC 170 while quoting with approval a
passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma
v. Aribam Pishak Sharma AIR 1979 SC
1047, the Hon'ble Supreme Court once
again held that review proceedings are not
by way of an appeal and have to be strictly
confined to the scope and ambit of Order
47 Rule 1 CPC.

"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 selfevident 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 of 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
a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to
be "an appeal in disguise".

33. In the case of State of West
Bengal and Others vs. Kamal Sengupta
and Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court had an occasion to consider
what can be said to be "mistake or error
apparent on the face of record". In para 22
to 35 it is observed and held as under:

"22. The term "mistake or error
apparent" by its very connotation signifies
an error which is evident per se from the
record of the case and does not require
detailed
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 47 Rule 1
1076 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put
it differently 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."

34. The principles which can be
culled out from the abovenoted judgments
are:

"(i) The power of the Tribunal to
review its order/decision under Section
22(3)(f) of the Act is akin/analogous to the
power of a civil court under Section 114
read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

(ii) The Tribunal can review its
decision
on
either
of
the
grounds
enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 and not
otherwise.

(iii) The expression "any other
sufficient reason" appearing in Order 47
Rule 1 has to be interpreted in the light of
other specified grounds.

(iv) An error which is not selfevident and which can be discovered by
along process of reasoning, cannot be
treated as an error apparent on the face of
record justifying exercise of power under
Section 22(3)(f).

(v) An erroneous order/decision
cannot be corrected in the guise of exercise
of power of review.

(vi) A decision/order cannot be
reviewed under Section 22(3)(f) on the
basis of subsequent decision/judgment of a
coordinate or larger Bench of the tribunal
or of a superior court.

(vii)
While
considering
an
application for review, the tribunal must
confine its adjudication with reference to
material which was available at the time of
initial decision. The happening of some
subsequent event or development cannot be
taken note of for declaring the initial
order/decision as vitiated by an error
apparent.

(viii) Mere discovery of new or
important matter or evidence is not
sufficient ground for review. The party
seeking review has also to show that such
matter or evidence was not within its
knowledge and even after the exercise of
due diligence, the same could not be
produced before the court/tribunal earlier."

35. In view of above, no ground for
review is made out.

36.

Application
is
accordingly
rejected. to place their grievance before the
Court.
----------
(2022)05ILR A1076
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 12.05.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SIDDHARTHA VARMA, J.

Writ - A No. 72166 of 2005

Ex. Constable Radhey Raman Yadav
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri M.M. Khan, Sri Mustaqeem Ahmad, Sri
Rajesh Kumar, Sri Yashodanand Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri K.C. Sinha A.S.G.I., Sri Jitendra Prasad
Mishra, Sri Kaushik Chatterjee, Sri Kaushik
Chatterji, Sri M.P. Shukla, Sri Prem Narayan
Rai, S.C.