# Smt. Rajeshwari & Ors.(In Sapl 375/2001) v. Smt. Meharunnishan & Ors

- **Citation:** (2021) 7 ILRA 14
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-07-15
- **Case number:** Civil Misc Review Application Defective No. 86 of 2021
- **Bench:** Jaspreet Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/smt-rajeshwari-ors-in-sapl-375-2001-v-smt-meharunnishan-ors-47066
- **Pages:** 13

## Headnote

Practice &Procedure - Review Application
- Re-hearing of the appeal is not within
the scope ofthe review. (Para 16)

Application Rejected. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-

## Text

_Characters 0–39,954 of 44,186. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39954 for what follows._

14 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"37. In case of absence of
reasoning the utility has been provided under
of Section 34(4) of the Arbitration Act to cure
such defects. When there is complete
perversity in the reasoning then only it can be
challenged under the provisions of Section 34
of the Arbitration Act. The power vested
under Section 34 (4) of the Arbitration Act to
cure defects can be utilised in cases where
the arbitral award does not provide any
reasoning or if the award has some gap in the
reasoning or otherwise and that can be cured
so as to avoid a challenge based on the
aforesaid curable defects under Section 34 of
the Arbitration Act. However, in this case
such remand to the Tribunal would not be
beneficial as this case has taken more than
25 years for its adjudication. It is in this state
of affairs that we lament that the purpose of
arbitration as an effective and expeditious
forum itself stands effaced."

41. On perusal of judgments in respect
of quantum of compensation mentioned in
the memo of appeal on which reliance has
been placed by the appellant, I find that none
of them is applicable in the facts of the
present case since those judgments have been
referred under the Indian Stamp Act whereas
the present case is under the Act, 1996
wherein Section 3-G (7) stipulates the criteria
which the Arbitrator shall consider in
determining the compensation.

42. Accordingly, this Court for the
reasons given above finds that the District
Judge has rightly modified the award and
directed for payment of compensation
treating the land to be commercial land.

43. Thus, for the reasons given above,
the appeal lacks merit and is accordingly,
dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.
----------
(2021)07ILR A14
REVISIONAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 15.07.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE JASPREET SINGH, J.

Civil Misc Review Application Defective No. 86 of
2021

Smt. Rajeshwari & Ors.(In Sapl 375/2001)
 ...Applicants
Versus
Smt. Meharunnishan & Ors.
 ...Opposite Parties

Counsel for the Applicants:
Uma Shankar Sahai

Counsel for the Opposite Parties:

Practice &Procedure - Review Application
- Re-hearing of the appeal is not within
the scope ofthe review. (Para 16)

Application Rejected. (E-8)

List of Cases cited:-

1. Rakesh Vs St. of U.P. Jail Appeal No 242 of
2013

2. C.S. Venkatesh Vs A.S.C. Murthy (D) by L.Rs.
& ors. Civil Appeal No. 8425 of 2009

3. Kanailal & ors. Vs Ram Chandra Singh & ors.
Civil Appeal No. 4165 of 2008

4. P. Meenakshisundaram Vs P. Vijayakumar &
ors. Civil Appeal Nos. 3353-3354 of 2018

5. Sukhvinder Singh Vs Jagroop Singh & ors.
Civil Appeal No. 760 of 2020

6. Ram Sahu & ors. Vs Vinod Kumar Rawat &
ors. 2020 SCC Online SC 896

7. Dalla Vs Nanhu 2019 (1) ADJ Page 246
7 All. Smt. Rajeshwari & Ors.(In Sapl 375/2001) Vs. Smt. Meharunnishan & Ors.
15
(Delivered by Hon'ble Jaspreet Singh, J.)

1. Heard Sri U.S. Sahai, learned
counsel for the review-petitioner.

2. The instant review-petition has
been preferred against the judgment and
order dated 24.02.2021 passed in Second
Appeal No. 375 of 2001. The said review is
also accompanied by an application seeking
condonation of delay.

3. Having considered the application
and the ground mentioned therein seeking
condonation of delay, this Court finds that in
view of the decision rendered by the Apex
Court in the case of Suo Moto Writ Petition
No. (Civil) 3 of 2020 In Ref: (Cognizance for
Extension of Limitation) the period of said
delay is to be excluded, hence, the reviewpetition shall be treated to be filed within
time.

4. The Court has heard the learned
counsel
for
the
review-petitioner
on
admission of the aforesaid review-petition.

5. The submission of learned counsel
for the appellant is that the instant second
appeal was argued by Sri Nirmal Tiwari,
Advocate. Since, thereafter he left for his
heavenly abode and in the aforesaid
circumstances, the appellants had contacted
the counsel who has preferred the instant
review-petition.

6. Sri U.S. Sahai while pressing the
application for review submits that in the
instant case, in a suit for specific performance
of contract which was dismissed by the Trial
Court, but has been decreed by the Lower
Appellate Court. The appellants of the
Second Appeal No. 375 of 2001 are the legal
heirs of the original defendant namely Sri
Darshan who was (the bonafide purchaser for
valuable consideration) of the property
having purchased the same from Sri Chedua,
(the original owner).

7. It has been submitted that after the
sale deed was executed in favour Sri Darshan
(the predecessor-in-interest of the present
review-petitioners), there was no cause of
action which survived to the plaintiffs to
press the suit for specific performance of
contract without assailing the sale deed in
question which was in favour of the
predecessor-in-interest
of
the
reviewpetitioner. In absence of any subsisting cause
of action, the proceedings itself were bad and
this aspect of the matter has not been noted
by the Court while passing the impugned
judgment dated 24.02.2021.

8. It is further urged that the issue of
readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs has
not been considered and no issue to the
aforesaid effect was framed. The issue
regarding
the
defendant
(Darshan-the
predecessors-in-interest
of
the
reviewpetitioners) being the bonafide purchaser for
valuable consideration without notice has also
not been considered in the correct perspective
so also the fact that the original owner of the
property namely Chhedua has not denied the
execution of the sale deed in favour of Sri
Darshan (predecessor-in-interest of the present
review-petitioner), hence, the plaintiff's suit
could not have been decreed by the lower
appellate court. The aforesaid aspect also
escaped the attention of he Court, hence, putting
the impugned judgment dated 24.02.2021 at a
vulnerable status, capable of being reviewed.

9. The learned counsel for the reviewpetitioner has relied upon the following
16 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
decisions in the case of Rakesh Vs. State of
U.P. decided on 18.05.2018 in Jail Appeal
No. 242 of 2013; C.S. Venkatesh Vs.
A.S.C. Murthy (D) by L.Rs. and Others
decided on 07.02.2020 in Civil Appeal No.
8425 of 2009; Kanailal and Others Vs.
Ram Chandra Singh and Others decided
on 23.08.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 4165 of
2008; P. Meenakshisundaram Vs. P.
Vijayakumar and Others decided on
28.03.2018 in Civil Appeal Nos. 3353-3354
of 2018 as well as in the case of
Sukhvinder Singh Vs. Jagroop Singh and
others decided on 28.01.2020 in Civil
Appeal No. 760 of 2020.

10. Before dealing with the aforesaid
submissions, it will be worthwhile to notice
a recent decision of the Apex Court in the
case of Ram Sahu and Others Vs. Vinod
Kumar Rawat and Others reported in
2020 SCC Online SC 896 wherein the
scope of the review has been considered in
fair degree of depth also considering earlier
decisions of the Apex Court on the point.
The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid
report is reproduced as under:-

.......25. While considering the
aforesaid question, the scope and ambit of
the Court's power under Section 114 read
with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is required to be
considered and for that few decisions of
this Court are required to be referred to.

26. In the case of Haridas Das v.
Usha Rani Banik (Smt.), (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 20
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
7 All. Smt. Rajeshwari & Ors.(In Sapl 375/2001) Vs. Smt. Meharunnishan & Ors.
17
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.

16. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma
v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC
389 : AIR 1979 SC 1047, this Court held
that there are definite limits to the exercise
of power of review. In that case, an
application under Order 47 Rule 1 read
with Section 151 of the Code was filed
which was allowed and the order passed by
the Judicial Commissioner was set aside
and the writ petition was dismissed. On an
appeal to this Court it was held as under :
(SCC p. 390, para 3)

"It is true as observed by this
Court in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab,
AIR 1963 SC 1909 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 21 powers
which may enable an appellate court to
correct all manner of errors committed
by the subordinate court."

17. The judgment in Aribam case
has been followed in Meera Bhanja. In that
case, it has been reiterated that an error
apparent on the face of the record for
acquiring jurisdiction to review must be
such an error which may strike one on a
mere looking at the record and would not
require
any
long-drawn
process
of
reasoning. The following observations in
connection with an error apparent on the
face of the record in Satyanarayan
Laxminarayan
Hegde
v.
Millikarjun
Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137
were also noted:

"An error which has to be
established by a long-drawn process of
reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions can hardly be
said to be an error apparent on the face of
the record. Where an alleged error is far
from self-evident and if it can be
established, it has to be established, by
lengthy and complicated arguments, such
an error cannot be cured by a writ of
certiorari according to the rule governing
the powers of the superior court to issue
such a writ."

18. It is also pertinent to mention
the observations of this Court in Parsion
Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715.
Relying upon the judgments in Aribam and
Meera Bhanja it was observed as under:

"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
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
18 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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'."

27. In the case of Lily Thomas v.
Union of India, (2000) 6 SC 224, it is
observed and held 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 the
said decision 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 v. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and
approved by this Court in Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar
Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526.

29. In the case of Inderchand Jain
v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663 in
paragraphs 7 to 11 it is observed and held
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. The grounds on which
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
7 All. Smt. Rajeshwari & Ors.(In Sapl 375/2001) Vs. Smt. Meharunnishan & Ors.
19
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. The dictionary meaning of the
word "review" is "the act of looking, offer
something again with a view to correction
or improvement". It cannot be denied that
the review is the creation of a statute. In the
case
of
Patel
Narshi
Thakershi
v.
Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3
SCC 844, this 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.

31. What can be said to be an
error apparent on the face of the
proceedings has been dealt with and
considered by this Court in the case of T.C.
Basappa v. 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 v. 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
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."

32. In the case of Parsion Devi v.
Sumitri Devi, (Supra) in paragraph 7 to 9 it
is observed and held 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
20 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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."

8. 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 (supra) this 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 v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC
612, this 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
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.

23. 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 Act have been
interpreted and limitations on the power of
the civil court/tribunal to review its
judgment/decision have been identified.

24. 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
7 All. Smt. Rajeshwari & Ors.(In Sapl 375/2001) Vs. Smt. Meharunnishan & Ors.
21
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)

25. 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 28 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."

26. In Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius
(supra)
this
Court
interpreted
the
provisions contained in the Travancore
Code of 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'."

27. In Thungabhadra Industries
Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. (supra) it was held that
a review is by no means an appeal in
disguise whereof an erroneous decision can
be corrected.

28. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri
Devi (Supra) it was held as under : (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'."

29. In Haridas Das v. Usha Rani
Banik, (supra) this Court made a reference
to the Explanation added to Order 47 by
22 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.

30. In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma
v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (Supra) this
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 (Supra) 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."

31. In K. Ajit Babu v. Union of
India, (1997) 6 SCC 473, it was held 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.
7 All. Smt. Rajeshwari & Ors.(In Sapl 375/2001) Vs. Smt. Meharunnishan & Ors.
23

32. In Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of
Orissa, (1999) 9 SCC 596, this 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
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."

33. In State of Haryana v. M.P.
Mohla, (2007) 1 SCC 457 this Court held
as under : (SCC pp. 465-66, para 27)

"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."

34. In Gopal Singh v. State
Cadre Forest Officers' Assn., (2007) 9
SCC 369 this 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."

35. 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
24 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 a
long 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 33
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."

34. 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 which appeal is
allowed but no appeal is preferred or where
there is no provision for appeal against an
order and decree, may apply for review of
the decree or order as the case may be in
the Court, which may order or pass the
decree. 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.
However, an order can be reviewed by a
Court only on the prescribed grounds
mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which
has
been
elaborately
discussed
hereinabove. 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 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.

35. Considered in the light of the
aforesaid settled position, we find that the
High Court has clearly overstepped the
jurisdiction vested in the Court under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. No ground as
envisaged under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC has
been made out for the purpose of reviewing
the observations made in para 20. It is
required to be noted and as evident from
para 20, the High Court made observations
in para 20 with respect to possession of the
plaintiffs on appreciation of evidence on
record more particularly the deposition of
the plaintiff (PW1) and his witness PW2
and on appreciation of the evidence, the
High Court found that the plaintiff is in
actual possession of the said house.
7 All. Smt. Rajeshwari & Ors.(In Sapl 375/2001) Vs. Smt. Meharunnishan & Ors.
25
Therefore, when the observation with respect
to the possession of the plaintiff were made
on appreciation of evidence/material on
record, it cannot be said that there was an
error apparent on the face of proceedings
which were required to be reviewed in
exercise of powers under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC. At this stage, it is required to be noted
that
even
High
Court
while
making
observations in para 20 with respect to
plaintiff in possession also took note of the
fact that the defendant nos. 1 and 2 -
respondents herein themselves filed an
application being I.A. No. 1267 of 2012
which was filed under Section 151 CPC for
getting the possession of the disputed house
from the appellants and the said application
was dismissed as withdrawn. Therefore, the
High Court took note of the fact that even
according to the defendant nos. 1 & 2 the
appellants were in possession of the disputed
house. Therefore, in light of the fact situation,
the High Court has clearly erred in deleting
para 20 in exercise of powers under Order 47
Rule 1 CPC more particularly in the light of
the settled preposition of law laid down by
this Court in the aforesaid decisions.

11. In view of the scope as discussed
above, if the submissions of the learned
counsel for the review-petitioner is tested
in light of the material available on record
including from the perusal of the impugned
judgment dated 24.02.2021, it would
indicate that while deciding the substantial
questions of law which have been noted in
the judgment, it would be seen that the
aforesaid aspects of the matter has been
duly considered by the Court and findings
have been given.

12. The Court has considered the
pleadings, issues framed and the evidence
available on record and finds that the
issue of readiness and willingness has been
noticed so also the issue of reviewpetitioner being a bona fide purchaser for
valuable consideration has been considered
with sufficient particularity.

13.