In this article I am sharing a complete simplified explanation regarding "review application". You can use this for writing your descriptive note in your exams.
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.
Order XLVII Rule 1 deals with the power of review. Section 114 read with O.47 R.1 C.P.C. prescribes the limitations for entertaining a review petition. The same are: that the party filing the application for review has discovered a new and important matter or evidence after exercise of due diligence which was not within its knowledge or could not be produced by it 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.’
The
aforesaid limitations are prescribed in a crystal clear language and before a party
submits that it had discovered a new and important matter or evidence which could
not be produced at the earlier stage, the condition precedent for entertaining
the review would be to record the finding as to whether at the initial stage,
the party has acted with due diligence. “Due” means just and proper in view of
the facts and circumstances of the case.
Some mistake or error, if made ground for review, it must be apparent on the face of the record and if a party files an application on the ground of ‘some other sufficient reason’, it has to satisfy that the said sufficient reason is analogous to the other conditions mentioned in the said rule i.e. discovery of new and important matter or evidence which it could not discover with due diligence or it was not within his knowledge, and thus, could not produce at the initial stage. Apparent error on the face of record has been explained to include failure to apply the law of limitation to the facts found by the Court or failure to consider a particular provision of a Statute or a part thereof or a statutory provision has been applied though it was not in operation. Review is permissible if there is an error of procedure apparent on the face of the record, e.g., the judgment is delivered without notice to the parties, or judgment does not effectively deal with or determine any important issue in the case though argued by the parties. There may be merely a smoke-line demarcating an error simplicitor from the error apparent on the face of record. But, there cannot be a ground for entertaining the review in the former case. “Sufficient reason” may include disposal of a case without proper notice to the party aggrieved. Thus, if a person comes and satisfies the Court that the matter has been heard without serving a notice upon him, review is maintainable for the “sufficient reason” though there may be no error apparent on the face of record. The expression ‘any other sufficient reason’ contained in O.47 R.1 of the Code means “sufficient reason” which is analogous to those specified immediately to it in the provision of O. 47 R. 1 of the Code.
The 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.
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
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.
The
purpose of review is rectification of an order which stems from the fundamental
principle that the justice is above all and it is exercised only to correct the
error which has occurred by some accident, without any blame.
In many
cases the Apex Court held that review does not lie on the ground that applicant
could not highlight all the aspects of the case or could have argued more
forcefully or cited binding precedents to get a favourable judgment.
For further reading you can visit:
Section 114. Review.
Order XLVII Rule 1 Application for review of judgment.
Judgments 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