Namadev Sitaram Badiger vs Manoja Chhawchharai and Others

Aravind Kumar, J.—1. Heard Sri. Namadev, party-in-person and perused the records.

This Review petition is filed seeking review of the dated 30.07.2013 passed in CRP No. 1002/2012. Said revision petition was filed by the petitioner in person questioning the correctness and legality of order passed by Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division (Dharwad) in O.S.261/2011 dated 09.12.2011 whereunder the review petitioner had been directed to value the suit as required under section 21 of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short ''Act''). This Court after having considered the contentions raised by Sri. Namadev, party appearing in person by a detailed order dated 30.07.2013 dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 09.12.2011. It is this order which is sought for being reviewed.

It is the contention of Sri. Namadev, party appearing in person that at the time of entering into contract with the respondents, he had deposited money with them which was in a sum of Rs. 12,00,000/- and same has not been refunded and on account of said amount having not been paid back by respondents, suit in question has been filed. He contends that it is not a suit for recovery of money but a suit seeking for payment of deposit amount which the petitioner had not repaid to the respondents. This argument which was also advanced while adjudicating the revision petition came to be considered and rejected on the ground that it is a suit for recovery of amount from the respondents/defendants and as such petitioner/plaintiff is required to pay advalorem Court fees as provided under section 21 of the Act.

Seeking review of this order Review Petition in question is filed. It is well settled the first and foremost requirement of review petition is the order, which the review is sought should suffer from error apparent on the face of the record. In the absence of such error finality attached to the order cannot be disturbed. The error, which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and order justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. Reagitating the issue which is already decided is impermissible. The Apex Court in the case of Bagirathi Ammal v. Plalani Roman Catholic Mission reported in , (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that the error contemplated under Rule 1 of Order 47 of CPC for permissibility of review must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence, it should be something more than a mere error and it must be one, which must be manifest on the face of the record. The Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others reported in , 2013 AIR SCW 4944 has laid down the contours under which a review petition can be entertained and when it cannot be entertained. Same reads as under:

"A) When the review will be maintainable:--

i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki, , AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & ors., , (1955) 1 SCR 520: (AIR 1954 SC 526), to mean " a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd., & Ors., , JT 2013 (8) SC 275: (2013 AIR SCW 2905).

(B) When the review will not be maintainable:

i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

v) 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.

vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be ground for review.

vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate Court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."

Though, contours defined by Apex Court are illustrative in nature, and not exhaustive as indicated therein facts obtained in the present case would not either fall under illustration referred herein above or any other ground which can be found in Rule 1 of Order 47 of CPC so as to review the order passed in revision petition No. 1002/2012 dated 30.07.2013.

In that view of the matter I do not find any good ground to entertain this review petition. Accordingly review petition stands rejected.