# Raj Kumar Singh Bhadouria v. Satya Mohan Pandey & Anr

- **Citation:** (2021) 9 ILRA 442
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-06
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Review Application No. 139896 of 2012
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/raj-kumar-singh-bhadouria-v-satya-mohan-pandey-anr-47427
- **Pages:** 5

## Headnote

Law
-
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,1908-Section 115-an attempt
to re-argue the matter which is not
permissible in a Review Application-An
application for review cannot be treated
to be an opportunity to argue the case on
merits afresh-in the garb of a review
application reargument on merits of the
case cannot be allowed.(Para 3 to 12)

B. 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
of
C.P.C.In
review
jurisdiction,
mere
disagreement
with
the
view
of
the
judgment cannot be the ground for
invoking the same. 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.
When
the
review
will
be
maintainable:-

(i) Discovery of new and important matter
or evidence which, after the exercise of
due diligence was not within knowledge of
the petitioner of could not be produced by
him.

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face
of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.(Para 4 to
9)
The review application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

442 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
no reason to allow the interest in this
matter at any rate higher than that allowed
by High Court."

18. In view of the above, the appeal is
partly allowed. Judgment and decree
passed by the Tribunal shall stand modified
to the aforesaid extent. The respondentInsurance Company shall deposit the
amount within a period of 12 weeks from
today with interest at the rate of 7.5% from
the date of filing of the claim petition till
award and 6% thereafter till the amount is
deposited. The amount already deposited
be deducted from the amount to be
deposited.

19. On depositing the amount in the
Registry of Tribunal, Registry is directed to
first deduct the amount of deficit court fees,
if any. Considering the ratio laid down by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of A.V.
Padma V/s. Venugopal, Reported in 2012
(1) GLH (SC), 442, the order of
investment is not passed because applicants
/claimants are neither illiterate or rustic
villagers.

20. In view of the ratio laid down by
Hon'ble Gujarat High Court, in the case of
Smt. Hansaguti P. Ladhani v/s The
Oriental
Insurance
Company
Ltd.,
reported in 2007(2) GLH 291, total
amount of interest, accrued on the principal
amount
of
compensation
is
to
be
apportioned on financial year to financial
year basis and if the interest payable to
claimant for any financial year exceeds
Rs.50,000/-,
insurance
company/owner
is/are entitled to deduct appropriate amount
under the head of 'Tax Deducted at Source'
as provided u/s 194A (3) (ix) of the Income
Tax Act, 1961 and if the amount of interest
does not exceeds Rs.50,000/- in any
financial year, registry of this Tribunal is
directed to allow the claimant to withdraw
the
amount
without
producing
the
certificate from the concerned Income- Tax
Authority. The aforesaid view has been
reiterated by this High Court in Review
Application No.1 of 2020 in First Appeal
From Order No.23 of 2001 (Smt. Sudesna
and others Vs. Hari Singh and another)
while disbursing the amount.

21.

Fresh
Award
be
drawn
accordingly in the above petition by the
tribunal as per the modification made
herein. The Tribunals in the State shall
follow the direction of this Court as herein
aforementioned as far as disbursement is
concerned, it should look into the condition
of the litigant and the pendency of the
matter and not blindly apply the judgment
of A.V. Padma (supra). The same is to be
applied looking to the facts of each case.

22. A copy of this Judgment be
circulated by the learned Registrar General
to the Tribunals in the State for guidance
after seeking approval of Hon'ble the Chief
Justice. A copy of this judgment be sent to
the learned tribunal whose judgment is
under challenge so that in future he may
not take such erroneous view which would
be unsustainable and against settled legal
provisions of law and remain updated with
precedents ,

23. This Court is thankful to both the
counsels for getting this old matter decided.
----------
(2021)09ILR A442
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 06.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
9 All. Raj Kumar Singh Bhadouria Vs. Satya Mohan Pandey & Anr.
443
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J.

Civil Misc. Review Application No. 139896 of
2012
in
FAFO No. 1046 of 2012

Raj Kumar Singh Bhadouria ...Appellant
Versus
Satya Mohan Pandey & Anr....Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Dhruva Narayana, Sri Anandi Krishna
Narayana

Counsel for the Respondents:
Sri J.P. Singh, Sri Siddharth

A.
Civil
Law
-
Code
of
Civil
Procedure,1908-Section 115-an attempt
to re-argue the matter which is not
permissible in a Review Application-An
application for review cannot be treated
to be an opportunity to argue the case on
merits afresh-in the garb of a review
application reargument on merits of the
case cannot be allowed.(Para 3 to 12)

B. 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
of
C.P.C.In
review
jurisdiction,
mere
disagreement
with
the
view
of
the
judgment cannot be the ground for
invoking the same. 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.
When
the
review
will
be
maintainable:-

(i) Discovery of new and important matter
or evidence which, after the exercise of
due diligence was not within knowledge of
the petitioner of could not be produced by
him.

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face
of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.(Para 4 to
9)
The review application is dismissed. (E-6)

List of Cases cited:

1. Thungabhadra Inds. Ltd. Vs. Govt of A.P.
(1964) AIR SC 1372
2. Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vs Aribam Pishak
Sharma (1979) 4 SCC 389
3. Meera Bhanja Vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury
(1995) AIR SC 455
4. Parsion Devi & ors. Vs Sumitri Devi & ors.
(1997) 8 SCC 715
5. Rajendra Kumar Vs Rambai (2003) AIR SC
2095
6. Lily Thomas Vs U.O.I. (2000) AIR SC 1650
7. Inderchand Jain Vs Motilal (2009) 4 SCC 665
8. Kamlesh Verma Vs Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320
9. Chhajju Ram Vs Neki (1922) AIR PC 112
10. Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs Most
Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & ors., AIR 1954
SC 526,
11. UOI Vs Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.
& ors., (2013) 8 SCC 337
(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Subhash Chand, J.)

(Ref: Civil Misc. Review Application
No.139896 of 2012)

1.

By
way
of
this
Review
Application, appellant, Raj Kumar Singh
Bhadouria has sought review of the
judgment and order dated 13.04.2012
passed by this Court (Coram: Justice Sheo
Kumar Singh and Justice Ram Surat Ram
(Maurya)) in First Appeal From Order No.
1046 of 2012 (Raj Kumar Singh Bhadouria
Vs. Satya Mohan Pandey and another).

2. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the review-applicant that the Court has
444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
not properly appreciated the matter and
judgment is not correct.

3. Having heard the learned counsel
for the petitioner (review) and gone
through the grounds taken in the Review
Application, we find that virtually there is
an attempt to re-argue the matter which is
not permissible in a Review Application.
An application for review cannot be treated
to be an opportunity to argue the case on
merits afresh. In the garb of a review
application reargument on merits of the
case cannot be allowed. We are even
fortified in our view by the following
authoritative pronouncements.

4. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd.
Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh
AIR 1964 SC 1372 the Court said:

"A review is by no means an
appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous
decision is reheard and corrected, but lies
only for patent error."

5. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma
Vs. Aribam Pishak Sharma 1979 (4)
SCC 389 the Court said:

"... 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."

6. Again, in Meera Bhanja v.
Nirmala Kumari Choudhury AIR 1995
SC 455 while quoting with approval the
above passage from Abhiram Taleshwar
Sharma Vs. Abhiram Pishak Shartn
(supra), the 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.

7. In Parsion Devi and others Vs.
Sumitri Devi and others 1997 (8) SCC
715 it was held that an error, which is not
self evident and has to be detected by
process of reasoning, can hardly be said to
be error apparent on the face of the record
justifying the court to exercise powers of
review in exercise of review jurisdiction.

8. In Rajendra Kumar Vs. Rambai,
AIR 2003 SC 2095, the Apex Court has
observed about limited scope of judicial
intervention at the time of review of the
judgment and said:

"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
9 All. Raj Kumar Singh Bhadouria Vs. Satya Mohan Pandey & Anr.
445
lead to failure of justice. In the absence of
any such error, finality attached to the
judgement/order cannot be disturbed."

9. Thus, Review is not an appeal in
disguise. Rehearing of the matter is
impermissible in the garb of review. It is an
exception to the general rule that once a
judgment is signed or pronounced, it should
not be altered. In Lily Thomas Vs. Union
of India AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Court said
that power of review can be exercised for
correction of a mistake and not to substitute
a new. Such powers can be exercised
within limits of the statute dealing with the
exercise of power. The aforesaid view is
reiterated in Inderchand Jain Vs. Motilal
(2009) 4 SCC 665.

10.

In
Kamlesh
Verma
Vs.
Mayawati and others 2013 (8) SCC 320,
the Court said:

"19. 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 of CPC. In review jurisdiction,
mere disagreement with the view of the
judgment cannot be the ground for
invoking the same. As long as the point is
already dealt with and answered, the
parties are not entitled to challenge the
impugned judgment in the guise that an
alternative view is possible under the
review jurisdiction.

Summary of the Principles:

20. Thus, in view of the above, the
following
grounds
of
review
are
maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be
maintainable:-

(i)
Discovery
of
new
and
important matter or evidence which, after
the exercise of due diligence, was not
within knowledge of the petitioner or could
not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on
the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient
reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju
Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and
approved by this Court in Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar
Poulose Athanasius & Ors., AIR 1954 SC
526, to mean "a reason sufficient on
grounds at least analogous to those
specified in the rule". The same principles
have been reiterated in Union of India vs.
Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. &
Ors., 2013 (8) SCC 337.

22.2. When the review will not be
maintainable:-

(i) A repetition of old and
overruled argument is not enough to
reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii)
Minor
mistakes
of
inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot
be equated with the original hearing of the
case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable
unless the material error, manifest on the
face
of
the
order,
undermines
its
soundness or results in miscarriage of
justice.

(v) A review is by no means an
appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous
decision is reheard and corrected but lies
only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two
views on the subject cannot be a ground
for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the
face of the record should not be an error
which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii)
The
appreciation
of
evidence on record is fully within the
domain of the appellate court, it cannot be
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
permitted to be advanced in the review
petition.

(ix) Review is not maintainable
when the same relief sought at the time of
arguing the main matter had been
negatived." (emphasis supplied)

11. In the case in hand, grounds for
review,
as
above,
and
the
review
application do not satisfy the contours of
entertaining the review petition, hence, we
find no reason to interfere with the well
reasoned order
of
this
Court dated
23.8.2016.

12. This review application is,
therefore, dismissed.
----------
(2021)09ILR A446
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE SUBHASH CHAND, J.

FAFO No. 1057 of 2021

Suresh Kumar Gupta ...Appellant
Versus
The Adjudication Authority/A.D.M., Basti
& Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Madhup Narain Shukla

Counsel for the Respondents:
-----

A. Civil Law-Food Safety and Standards
Act,
2006-Section
68(2)
,
76-the
designated
officer
has
not
put
his
recommendations
before
the
Commissioner
of
Food
Safety
for
sanctioning to run the prosecution against
the appellant and after delay of 9 months
from the receipt of the analysis report he
has itself taken decision to run the
prosecution
against
the
appellant-the
same
is
in
gross
violation
of
the
provisions, which is mandatory under the
Act,2006-appellant did not receive notice
and could not put his defence-However
appellant has deposited 50% of the
amount of fine-the deposit shall be
subject to the result of appeal-appellate
authority
will
decide
the
matter
afresh.(Para 1 to 12)

The appeal is disposed off. (E-6)

(Delivered by Hon'ble Dr. Kaushal
Jayendra Thaker, J.
&
Hon'ble Subhash Chand, J.)

1. Heard Sri Madhup Narain Shukla ,
learned counsel for appellant and perused
the record.

2. The present appeal has been filed
challenging the judgment and order dated
22.06.2019 passed in Case No. 53 of 2017
(State Vs. Suresh Kumar Gupta) under
Section 68(2) of Food Safety and Standards
Act, 2006.

3. This appeal is under Food Safety
and Standards Act, 2006. The appeal
requires to be allowed. The provisions of
Section 76 of the Food Safety and
Standards Act, 2006 reads as under:

"76. Appeal.-

(1) Any person aggrieved by a
decision or order of a Special Court may,
on payment of such fee as may be
prescribed by the Central Government and
after depositing the amount, if any,
imposed by way of penalty, compensation
or damage under this Act, within forty-five
days from the date on which the order was