Bhupendra Singh Notey vs Gagandeep Kaur

G.Satapathy, J.

This is an application U/S 114 read with Order-XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the “CPC”) by the petitioner seeking review of the judgment dated 04.03.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4283 of 2024 mainly on the ground of error apparent on the face of record and discovery of new facts.

The recapitulation of facts reminisces that the review-petitioner is the husband of present OP and the review-petitioner had filed an application U/S. 11 read with Sec. 12 and Sec. 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short the “Act”) in the Court of learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur seeking divorce from the OP-wife on the ground of cruelty, but the OP-wife moved an application before the Apex Court for transfer of such application and accordingly, the aforesaid proceeding before the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Jabalpur was transferred to the Court of learned Judge Family Court, Rourkela which was renumbered as CP No. 115 of 2018 wherein the OP-wife filed an application U/S. 24 of the Act for grant of pendentelite maintenance in IA No. 48-A of 2022 which was in fact allowed by learned Judge Family Court, Rourkela directing the petitioner-husband to pay a sum of Rs.15,000/- only per month for maintenance of the OP and her daughter from the date of filing of first application i.e. w.e.f. 22.04.2017 in the first week of every English calendar month together with litigation expenses of Rs.10,000/-. Being aggrieved with aforesaid order, the review-petitioner-cum-husband filed a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P.(C) No. 4283 of 2024. Accordingly, this Court after hearing the learned counsel for the review-petitioner-cum-husband and the counsel for the OP-wife has passed judgment dated 04.03.2025 dismissing the writ petition of the petitioner-husband, but the petitioner-husband has invoked the provision of review to recall the said judgment in the present review petition.

Heard, Mr.Bhupendra Singh Notey, the review-petitioner in person and perused the record.

There is no quarrel over the position of law that a review petition can be admitted in exercise of power U/S. 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, provided the party applying for review must satisfy the Court one of the three grounds, such as: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party applying for review or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree/judgment was passed or order made; (ii) error apparent on the face of record; and (iii) any other sufficient reasons, but the review-petitioner herein has sought for the review of the dismissal judgment passed in the writ petition on the grounds which have been stated supra.

Admittedly, the prayer being the foundation of the relief is extracted as under:-

A careful scrutiny of the aforesaid prayer, this Court hardly finds any reason for review. Even otherwise on perusing the petition, it is found that the petitioner has sought for review of the judgment of this Court on the ground of discovery of new facts, but the petitioner has not clarified as to what evidence or material he could not produce at the time of passing of the judgment in the writ petition even after exercise of due diligence. Further, the error apparent on record does not mean that error that can be ascertained after a full exercise of long drawn reasoning on points and such error which gives rise to review must be an error on mere looking of the judgment or order and that strikes to the root of the case, but any error apparent on the face of record does not appear in the averments of the petitioner. It, therefore, appears to the Court that the petitioner seeks to challenge the judgment passed in the writ petition in the garb of the present review petition, but the grounds of appeal and the grounds of review are two different issues. The petitioner might have a cause of action for the appeal, but the same may not be the grounds for review. It is clear beyond doubt that the review proceeding is not by way of an appeal and it has to be strictly inconformity with the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the CPC. The review petition can only be entertained on the grounds enumerated in the aforesaid provision.

In the aforesaid facts and situation and on consideration of the submission as advanced by the petitioner in person and taking into account the averments made by the review petitioner in the review petition keeping in view the grounds of review and on a careful conspectus of the record, this Court is of the considered view that there is neither any error apparent on the face of record nor is there any discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the review-petitioner or could not be produced by him when the judgment was passed in the writ petition and, therefore, there is hardly any reason to invoke the review jurisdiction of the Court to recall the judgment passed in the writ petition and the review-petition filed by the petitioner-husband is liable to be rejected.

In the result, the review petition being unmerited stands dismissed, but in the circumstance, no order as to costs.