# Vinod Kumar v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2022) 11 ILRA 537
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-09-19
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Review Appl. No. 2 of 2019
- **Bench:** Vivek Kumar Birla, Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/vinod-kumar-v-state-of-u-p-ors-47866
- **Pages:** 15

## Headnote

A. Civil Law - Nature, Scope and Ambit of
Power of review - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Order XLVII, Rule 1 - The settled
law is that power of review is available
only when there is an error apparent on
the face of the record and not on
erroneous decision. If the parties aggrieved
by the judgment on the ground that it is
erroneous, remedy is only questioning the said
order in appeal. The power of review
u/Order XLVII, rule 1, CPC may be opened
inter alia, only if there is a mistake or an
error apparent on the face of the record,
the said power cannot be exercised as is
not permissible for an erroneous decision
to be "reheard and corrected." A review
petition has a limited purpose and cannot
be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'.
(Para 5, 7, 9)

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.
The power of review cannot be confused with
appellate power which enables a superior court
to correct all errors committed by a subordinate
court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A
repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(Para 5, 6)

B. The error has to be self-evident and is
not to be found out by a process of
reasoning. An error apparent on the face of
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.
(Para 5, 7)

C. The parties are not entitled to challenge
the impugned judgment in the guise that
an alternative view is possible under the
review jurisdiction. 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. (Para 5, 6)

In the present case, the applicant is seeking
review of the order passed in special appeal on
the grounds that had already been taken before
this court and is in fact seeking review on
merits. A bare glance over the quoted grounds
taken in the special appeal and in the review
application would clearly reflect that in fact
applicant is seeking rehearing of the appeal,
which according to him was dismissed by an
erroneous judgment. (Para 11, 14)

The present review application does not fall
within the parameters of the Order XLVII, rule 1
C.P.C. (Para 16)

Review application rejected. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

## Text

_Characters 0–39,891 of 51,323. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39891 for what follows._

11 All. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
537
enquiry is to be regulated primarily by the
provisions contained in the Vigilance
Mannual and not in terms of the procedure
as given in the Government Orders.
Further, the order dated 08.01.2020 had
directed the Chief Secretary to consider all
the aspects in the matter which have been
considered by him while passing the order
dated 16.03.2022.

34. Much emphasis has been laid by
the
learned
counsel
representing
the
appellant-petitioner on the Government
Order dated 14.04.1981, which provides
that in case any complaint is received
against the employee or the officer, the
enquiry should be conducted by an officer
at least two rank higher than the officer
against whom complaint is made, however,
while doing so it should be kept in mind
that the rank of the enquiry officer should
be below the rank of punishing authority.
The said Government Order, in our
opinion, will have application in case any
fact finding enquiry results into the
institution of any departmental proceeding.
The Government Order, dated 14.04.1981
will have no application so far as the open
vigilance enquiry is concerned for the
reasons which have been elaborated above.

35. In view of the discussions made
and the reasons given above, in our
considered
opinion,
the
order
dated
18.05.2022, passed by the learned Single
Judge in Writ-A No. 2894 of 2022 does not
warrant any interference by this Court in
this Special Appeal. The Special Appeal is,
thus, hereby dismissed.
----------
(2022) 11 ILRA 537
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.09.2022

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VIVEK KUMAR BIRLA, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Civil Misc. Review Appl. No. 2 of 2019
in
Spl. Appl. No.1083 of 2019

Vinod Kumar ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri Babu Ram Yadav, Sri Salil Krishna

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

A. Civil Law - Nature, Scope and Ambit of
Power of review - Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 - Order XLVII, Rule 1 - The settled
law is that power of review is available
only when there is an error apparent on
the face of the record and not on
erroneous decision. If the parties aggrieved
by the judgment on the ground that it is
erroneous, remedy is only questioning the said
order in appeal. The power of review
u/Order XLVII, rule 1, CPC may be opened
inter alia, only if there is a mistake or an
error apparent on the face of the record,
the said power cannot be exercised as is
not permissible for an erroneous decision
to be "reheard and corrected." A review
petition has a limited purpose and cannot
be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'.
(Para 5, 7, 9)

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.
The power of review cannot be confused with
appellate power which enables a superior court
to correct all errors committed by a subordinate
court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A
repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(Para 5, 6)

B. The error has to be self-evident and is
not to be found out by a process of
reasoning. An error apparent on the face of
538 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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.
(Para 5, 7)

C. The parties are not entitled to challenge
the impugned judgment in the guise that
an alternative view is possible under the
review jurisdiction. 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. (Para 5, 6)

In the present case, the applicant is seeking
review of the order passed in special appeal on
the grounds that had already been taken before
this court and is in fact seeking review on
merits. A bare glance over the quoted grounds
taken in the special appeal and in the review
application would clearly reflect that in fact
applicant is seeking rehearing of the appeal,
which according to him was dismissed by an
erroneous judgment. (Para 11, 14)

The present review application does not fall
within the parameters of the Order XLVII, rule 1
C.P.C. (Para 16)

Review application rejected. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRS & ors. Vs
Vinod Kumar Rawat & ors., 2020 SCC Online SC
896 (Para 5)

2. Kamlesh Verma Vs Mayawati & ors., (2013) 8
SCC 320 (Para 6)

3. Sasi (Dead) Through Legal Representative Vs
Arvindakshan Nair & ors., (2017) 4 SCC 692
(Para 7)

4. Haridas Vs Usha Rani Banik, AIR 2006 SC
1634 (Para 8)

5. T.P. Singh Vs Registrar/Assistant Registrar
Firms & anr., 2018 (4) ADJ 782 (Para 10)
Present review application seeks review of
the order dated 18.10.2019, whereby
special appeal filed against the reasoned
judgment of Writ Court dated 18.09.2019
was dismissed on merits.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,
J. & Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

Re: Civil Misc. Review Application
No.2 of 2019

1. Heard Sri Babu Ram Yadav,
learned counsel for the applicant at length.

2. Present review application has been
filed seeking review of the order dated
18.10.2019 whereby special appeal filed
against the reasoned judgment of Writ
Court dated 18.09.2019 was dismissed on
merits.

3. Before proceeding further it would
be appropriate to take note of Order XLVII,
Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (hereinafter referred to as the CPC) as
well as scope of review as per settled law.

4. For ready reference Order XLVII,
Rule 1 CPC is quoted 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
11 All. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
539
decree was passed or order made, or on
account of some mistake or error apparent
on the face of the record of 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 to
the Court which passed the decree or made
the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from
a decree or order may apply for a review of
judgment notwithstanding the pendency of
an appeal by some other party except
where the ground of such appeal is
common to the applicant and the appellant,
or when, being respondent, he can present
to the Appellate Court the case on which he
applies for the review.

[Explanation.- 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.]"

5. In Shri Ram Sahu (Dead)
Through LRS and Others vs. Vinod
Kumar Rawat and Others, 2020 SCC
Online SC 896, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
has considered the law on the scope of
review in detail, relevant paragraphs
whereof are quoted as under:-

"26. In the case of Haridas Das vs.
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
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
540 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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, 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 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
longdrawn
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 longdrawn 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 selfevident 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. 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 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'."
11 All. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
541

27. In the case of Lily Thomas vs.
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 vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC
112 and approved by this 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 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 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
542 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 vs.
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 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
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
clearcut rule by which the boundary
between the two classes of errors could be
demarcated."

32. In the case of Parsion Devi vs.
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 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
11 All. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
543
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
and Others vs. Kamal Sengupta and Anr.,
(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 selfevident 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 (18991900) 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
544 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
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 nonappealing 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."

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
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'. 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
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
11 All. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
545
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.

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 3031)
546 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

"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. 46566, 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 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.
11 All. Vinod Kumar Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
547

(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
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."

(Emphasis supplied)

6. In Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati
and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Hon'ble
Apex Court in paragraphs 17 to 20 has held
as under:

"17. In a review petition, it is not open
to the Court to reappreciate the evidence
and reach a different conclusion, even if
that is possible. Conclusion arrived at on
appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed
in a review petition unless it is shown that
there is an error apparent on the face of the
record or for some reason akin thereto.
This Court in Kerala SEB v. Hitech
Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. (2005)
6 SCC 651 held as under: (SCC p. 656,
para 10)

"10. ... In a review petition it is not
open to this Court to reappreciate the
evidence and reach a different conclusion,
even if that is possible. The learned counsel
548 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
for the Board at best sought to impress us
that
the
correspondence
exchanged
between the parties did not support the
conclusion reached by this Court. We are
afraid such a submission cannot be
permitted to be advanced in a review
petition. The appreciation of evidence on
record is fully within the domain of the
appellate court. If on appreciation of the
evidence produced, the court records a
finding of fact and reaches a conclusion,
that conclusion cannot be assailed in a
review petition unless it is shown that there
is an error apparent on the face of the
record or for some reason akin thereto. It
has not been contended before us that there
is any error apparent on the face of the
record. To permit the review petitioner to
argue on a question of appreciation of
evidence would amount to converting a
review petition into an appeal in disguise."

18. Review is not rehearing of an
original matter. The power of review
cannot be confused with appellate power
which enables a superior court to correct
all errors committed by a subordinate
court. A repetition of old and overruled
argument
is
not
enough
to
reopen
concluded adjudications. This Court in
Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public
Co. Ltd. (2006) 5 SCC 501, held as under:
(SCC pp. 504-505, paras 11-12)

"11. So far as the grievance of the
applicant on merits is concerned, the
learned counsel for the opponent is right in
submitting that virtually the applicant seeks
the same relief which had been sought at
the time of arguing the main matter and
had been negatived.