# Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C., Bareilly v. Smt. Sabari Begum

- **Citation:** (2021) 10 ILRA 646
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-06
- **Case number:** FAFO No. 3400 of 2011
- **Bench:** Dr. Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, Subhash Chand
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/regional-manager-u-p-s-r-t-c-bareilly-v-smt-sabari-begum-46385
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

Review
application
filed-virtually
an
attempt to re argue the matter-not
permissible in review application.

Reargument on merits cannot be allowed
in a review application. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
10 All. Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C., Bareilly Vs. Smt. Sabari Begum
647

## Text

646 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
and to support the evidence recorded by the
court.

20. The evidence recorded by the
court during trial is thus to be accorded
primacy and for the purpose of exercise
of power under Section 319 of the Code
would have to be given weight over the
material which was collected during the
course of investigation. The contention
which has been sought to be raised
placing
reliance
upon
the
material
collected by the investigating officer
during the course of investigation, for the
purpose of exercise of powers under
Section 319 of the Code, thus cannot be
accepted.

21. The power under Section 319 of
the Code to summon even those persons
who are not named in the charge-sheet to
appear
and
face
trial,
being
unquestionable and the object of the
provision being not to allow a person
who deserves to be tried to go scot-free
by being not arraigned in the trial inspite
of possibility of his complicity which can
be gathered from the evidence during the
course of trial, the order passed under
Section 319 of the Code summoning the
revisionist does not contain any material
error so as to warrant inference.

22. The aforementioned legal
position has been considered in detail in a
recent decision of this Court in Adesh
Tyagi vs. State of U.P. and Another6

23. Counsel for the revisionist at
this stage submits that he does not dispute
the aforementioned legal position with
regard to the scope of exercise of powers
under Section 319 of the Code and states
that the revisionist would submit to the
jurisdiction of the court below and seek
bail.

24. Needless to say that in case any
such application for bail is moved by the
revisionist, the court below would be
expected to dispose of the same in
accordance with the settled principles of
law.

25. Subject to aforesaid observation
the revision stands dismissed.
----------

(2021)10ILR A646
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 06.09.2021

BEFORE

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

FAFO No. 3400 of 2011
(CIVIL MISC. REVIEW APPLICATION No. 340686
of 2011)

Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C., Bareilly
 ...Appellant
Versus
Smt. Sabari Begum ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Nripendra Mishra

Counsel for the Respondent:

Review
application
filed-virtually
an
attempt to re argue the matter-not
permissible in review application.

Reargument on merits cannot be allowed
in a review application. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:
10 All. Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C., Bareilly Vs. Smt. Sabari Begum
647
1. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs The
Government of Andhra Pradesh AIR 1964 SC
1372

2. Meera Bhanja Vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury
AIR 1995 SC 455 w

3. Parsion Devi & ors. Vs Sumitri Devi & ors.
1997 (8) SCC 715

4. Rajendra Kumar Vs Rambai, AIR 2003 SC
2095

5. Lily Thomas Vs U.O.I. AIR 2000 SC 1650

6. Inderchand Jain Vs Motilal (2009) 4 SCC 665

7. Kamlesh Verma Vs Mayawati & ors. 2013 (8)
SCC 320

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

(Ref: Civil Misc. Review Application No.
340686 of 2011)

1.

By
way
of
this
Review
Application, applicant, Regional Manager
U.P.S.R.T.C. has sought review of the
judgment and order dated 18.10.2011
passed by this Court (Coram: Justice Sunil
Ambwani and Justice Kashi Nath Pandey)
in First Appeal From Order No. 3400 of
2011 (Regional Manager U.P.S.R.T.C. Vs.
Smt. Sabari Begum).

2. It is submitted by learned counsel
for the review-applicant that the Court has
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
648 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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
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;
10 All. Radhika Devi & Ors. Rajendra Prasad Daruka & Anr.
649

(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
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
18.10.2011.

12. This review application is,
therefore, dismissed.
----------
(2021)10ILR A649
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED:ALLAHABAD 18.08.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE VIVEK VARMA, J.

FAFO No. 3830 of 2009

Radhika Devi & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Rajendra Prasad Daruka & Anr.
 ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellants:
Sri Amit Kumar Sinha, Deepali Srivastava