AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arijit Banerjee, J
THE COURT: This application has been taken out by the writ petitioner for review of a judgement and order dated 28th June, 2019 whereby W.P.No.115 of 2017 was dismissed.
Mr. Lahiri, learned Advocate appearing in support of the review application has submitted that the entire enquiry proceeding was under challenge. In fact, no enquiry was held. There was no witness action and other formalities that are inherent part of an enquiry were not observed. He submitted that these points be recorded in the judgement under review.
I have heard Mr. Lahiri, learned advocate for the petitioner and Mr. De, learned advocate for the respondent/company.
I am unable to accede to the request of Mr. Lahiri. The judgement under review cannot be reopened excepting on one of the grounds contemplated in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The scope of review is very limited. Only in case of mistake or error apparent on the face of the judgement or where new evidence has surfaced which could not have been placed before the court or for other sufficient reasons, a judgement may be reviewed.
I find no ground for review in this case.
In State of West Bengal & Ors -vs- Kamal Sengupta & Anr. Reported in (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed at paragraph 22 of the reported judgement as follows:
"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 cold 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."
In the said decision at paragraphs 25 to 30 the Hon'ble Supreme Court discussed its earlier decisions wherefrom, inter alia, the following points emerge :
(i) That a decision is erroneous in law is 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.
(ii) The words "any other sufficient reason" must mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in Rule 1 of Order 47 of CPC.
(iii) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision can be corrected.
(iv) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot 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 of CPC.
(v) In exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is impermissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected.
(vi) 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 only by a higher forum, the latter 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".
(vii) Order 47 Rule 1 CPC does not postulate a rehearing of the dispute on the ground that 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.
(viii) The power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision under review was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of the Appellate Court. The 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.
Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles of law which emerge from various Supreme Court decisions, I am unable to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner. No ground for review within the meaning of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 has been made out.
The review petition along with connected application are accordingly dismissed.