AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
A. Gopal Rao, J.—This petition is to review the order of this Court dated 13-2-1992 passed in C.R.P.No. 2269 of 1991.
After hearing the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondents at length, it was held in C.R.P.No. 2269 of 1991 that, Ex. A-3 is not a duplicate copy of Ex.B-1 and the clauses in Ex.A-3 are totally different from those contained in Ex.B-1. It was also held that, since both the parties have signed the agreement, Ex.B-1, viz., the Corporation and the Contractor, the clauses in that agreement (Ex.B-1) alone bind the parties. It was further held that a mere reference to the A.P. Detailed Standard Specifications in the agreement does not, by itself, give scope to assume the existence of the arbitration clause, which was not, in fact, incorporated in the agreement.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks review of the above said order on the ground that, the petitioner is left without a remedy as he cannot now file a suit and also on the ground that the principle of promissory estoppel'' is attracted to the facts of the case which was, by mistake, not brought to the notice of the Court earlier at the time of hearing the Civil Revision Petition. To substantiate the second contention referred to above, the learned Counsel for the petitioner wants to rely upon the decisions rendered in:
Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, , Delhi Cloth and General Mills Ltd. Vs. Union of India (UOI), ; Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (Asst.) Dharwar and Others Vs. Dharmendra Trading Company and Others, and Sanatan Gauda Vs. Berhampur University and others,
The learned Counsel for the respondent, however, contends that the review petition itself is not maintainable and the points now sought to be raised are covered by the order, which is sought to be reviewed.
Therefore, the point for consideration is whether the review petition is maintainable? If so, whether the order dated 13-2-1992 passed in C.R.P. 2269/91 deserves to be altered.
Under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, the Court can review its order only if there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not otherwise. The two grounds now raised in this review petition do not satisfy the mandatory provisions of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, it was held that a party is not entitled to seek review of a judgment merely for the purpose of a re-hearing and a fresh decision of the case. In that decision it was observed:
"The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so..........
But, whatever the nature of the proceedings, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallability."
Krishna Iyer, J., speaking for the Bench in that decision held that:
"A review in Counsel''s mentation cannot repair the Verdict once given. So the law laid down must rest in peace."
Following the judgment in Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi, , I hold that no valid grounds are made out in this case for review. The review petition is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.