In this article I am sharing some of judgments regarding review application. The basic principle of all the laws in human society is nothing but natural justice. The review application governs the principles of natural justice. For example A had filed a suit against B and mentioned all the material facts it which he was knowing while filing the suit and on the basis of these facts he won the case. But after passing judgment in favour of A, B came to know some more material facts about the issue and such new issues are in favour of B, then he can file a review application for sake of justice. These judgments can be used for descriptive note on review application.
Judgments:
(a) In Delhi
Administration V. Gurdeep Singh Uban, AIR 2000 SC 3737, the Apex Court
deprecated the practice of filing review application observing that review, by
no means, is an appeal in disguise and it cannot be entertained even if
application has been filed for clarification, modification or review of the
judgment and order finally passed for the reason that a party cannot be
permitted to circumvent or by-pass the procedure prescribed for hearing a
review application.
(b) Devaraju
Pillai V. Sellayya Pillai, AIR 1987 SC 1160, the Apex Court held that if a
party is aggrieved by a judgment of a Court, the proper remedy for such party
is to file an appeal against that judgment. A remedy by way of an application
for review, is entirely misconceived and if a Court entertained the application
for review then it has totally exceeded its jurisdiction in allowing the review
merely because it takes a different view in construction of the document.
(c) In
Sow. Chandra Kanta & Anr. V. Sheik Habib, AIR 1975 SC 1500, the Apex Court
dismissed a review application observing as under:-
“...........thus,
making it that a review proceeding virtually amounts to a rehearing. May be
........... a review thereof must be subject to the rules of the game and
cannot be lightly entertained. A review of a judgment is a serious subject and
reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent
mistake or like grave of error is crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.”
(d) In Thadikulangara
Pylee’s son Pathrose V. Ayyazhiveettil Lakshmi Amma’s son Kuttan & Ors.,
AIR 1969 Ker 186, the Kerala High Court considered a review application which
was filed on the ground of subsequent judgment of the Court and dismissed the same
observing as under:-
“If it is
borne in mind that a judicial decision only declares and does not make or
change the law, although it might correct previous erroneous views of the law,
a review on the basis of subsequent binding authority would not be a review of
a decree which, when it was made, was rightly made, on the ground of the
happening of a subsequent event.”
(e) In Mt.
Jamna Kuer V. Lal Bahadur & Ors., AIR 1950 FC 131, the Federal Court made
the following observations:- “Whether the error occurred by reason of the
counsel’s mistake or it crept in by reason of an oversight on the part of the
Court, is not a circumstance which can affect the exercise of jurisdiction of
the Court to review its decision. We have no doubt that the error was apparent
on the face of the record and, in our opinion, the question as to how the error
occurred is not relevant to this enquiry.”
(f) In Hari Shankar V. Anath Nath, 1949 FC 106, Federal Court held as under:-
“......the
error could not be one apparent on the face of 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 record sufficient to bring the case within the purview of O.47 R.1,
Civil Procedure Code.”
(g) In State of West Bengal & Ors. V. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Apex Court held that review on the ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence can be taken into consideration if the same is of such a nature that if it had been produced earlier, it would have altered the judgment under review and Court must be satisfied that the party who is adducing the new ground was not having the knowledge of the same even after exercise of due diligence and therefore, it could not be produced before the Court earlier. The error apparent signifies as 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. In case the 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 review.
(h) In S. Nagraj & Ors. V. State of Karnataka & Anr., 1993 Supp (4) SCC 595, the Apex Court considered the scope of review and observed as under:- “Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or reconsideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law, the courts and even the Statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice ......... The expression, `for any other sufficient reason’ in the clause has been given an expanded meaning and a decree or order passed under misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power.”
(i) In Chhajju Ram V. Neki & Ors., AIR 1922 PC 112, it was held by the Privy Council that apology must be discovered between two grounds specified therein, namely; (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; and (ii) error apparent on the face of record before entertaining the review on any other sufficient ground.
For further reading you can visit:
Section 114. Review.
Order XLVII Rule 1 Application for review of judgment.
Complete note on "Review Application"
Reference:
http://www.nja.nic.in/16%20CPC.pdf
Please
share and follow this blog for more such law related articles.
No comments:
Post a Comment