AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Johnson John, J.
This writ appeal is filed by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 26612 of 2020 challenging the order dated 30.07.2021 passed by the learned single Judge in R.P. No. 493 of 2021 after the disposal of the writ petition as per judgment dated 14.12.2020.
The non-payment of the eligible amounts of DCRG even after 7 years from the date of superannuation was under challenge in the writ petition and as per judgment dated 14.12.2020, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition and directed the competent authority of the Water Authority to disburse the eligible amounts of DCRG to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment, failing which it was directed that the amount would carry interest at the rate of 9% from the date it became actually due, until it is paid.
Subsequently, the Kerala Water Authority and its officials filed a Review petition as R.P No. 493 of 2021 to vacate the direction in the judgment to pay interest at the rate of 9% on the amount of DCRG payable on the ground that the delay in payment of the same has been occurred solely on account of the covid-19 pandemic restrictions.
The learned single Judge, after considering the submissions of the review petitioners that reliefs were granted to the writ petitioner based on a Full Bench decision of this Court in Chandran v. Local Self Government Department [2020 (5) KLT 669 (FB)] and that the said judgment has been subsequently stayed by the Honourable Supreme Court and that in the meanwhile, the Water Authority has paid eligible DCRG to the writ petitioner, allowed the Review Petition to the extent of vacating the direction to pay interest at the rate of 9% per annum.
Heard Sri. S. Aneesh, the learned counsel for the appellant, Sri. Saigi Jacob Palatty, Sr. Government Pleader for respondent Nos. 1 and 8 to 9 and Sri. Sujith Mathew Jose, the learned Standing Counsel for respondent Nos. 2 to 7.
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that there is nothing in the impugned order of the learned single Judge to show that the Review Petition was allowed because of any error apparent on the face of the record and that the Review Petition is maintainable only if the judgment is suffering from an error apparent on the face of the record, and if the direction in the judgment is erroneous, then the remedy is to file an appeal and not a Review Petition. But, the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents argued that the Review Petition was allowed after considering the change in the legal position as well as the subsequent payment of the full amount of DCRG.
The main question that arises for consideration is as to whether the impugned order of the learned single Judge is within the scope of Section 114 of CPC and Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, which are extracted below for convenient reference:
Section 114:
“114.Review.—Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved—
(a)by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred.
(b)by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or
(c)by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”
Order XLVII Rule 1:
“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 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.
1[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.]”
It is well settled that a review is, by no means, an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error, as held by the Honourable Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati [(2013) 8 SCC 320]. In N. Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534] the Honourable Supreme Court held that review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits and in Sasi (D) through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nai and Ors [AIR 2017 SC 1432], the Honourable Supreme Court held that in order to exercise the power of review, the error has to be self-evident and not to be found out by a process of reason.
The Honourable Supreme Court in Rajender Kumar v. Rambhai [(2007) 15 SCC 513 = 2002 ICO 6370] held thus:
“… 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.”
As noticed earlier, one of the reasons stated in the impugned order is that the reliefs were granted based on the Full Bench decision of this Court in Chandran (supra) and the same was subsequently stayed by the Honourable Supreme Court. But, explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC shows that the decision on a question of law on which the decision 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 to review such judgment. The findings recorded by the learned single Judge in the judgment dated 14.12.2020 would show that the direction to pay interest was made as a default clause so as to compel respondents to disburse the amount within the time stipulated in the judgment.
Therefore, it is clear that the learned single Judge passed the said judgment after considering all the relevant circumstances and proper application of mind and therefore, it cannot be said that there was any error apparent on the face of the record to review the said judgment. In the absence of any legally acceptable reasons for reviewing the direction in the judgment, we are of the view that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside
In the result, the appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned order dated 30.07.2021 in R.P No. 493 of 2021 and the said Review Petition stands dismissed.