Sadhuram and Others vs Intjamia Committee Tahpuj Kabristan and Masjil and Others

Sujoy Paul, J.—By filing this review petition, the petitioner is seeking review of the order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 5999/2011 (Sadhuram and others Vs. Intjamia Committee Tahpuj & Kabristan & Masjil) dated 19.12.2012. Shri Tomar, Senior counsel submits that the petitioner heavily relied on Khemchand Vs. Government of M.P. and others, . In the light of the said judgment, it was argued that this Court has not considered the said judgment and, therefore, committed an error in passing the order dated 19.12.2012. The second submission is that the order passed by this Court runs contrary to the judgment of Supreme Court reported in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, Shri Tomar fairly submits that although this judgment of Supreme Court was not cited before this Court, yet on the basis of this judgment, the matter needs to be reviewed.

It is opposed by Shri N.K. Jain, learned senior counsel on the ground that there is no error apparent on the face of the record which requires review.

I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

This Court while delivering the order dated 19.12.2012 has considered the judgment of Khemchand (supra) and assigned reasons in page 5 as to why the said judgment could not be made applicable. In para 7, this Court discussed about the applicability of judgment of Khemchand (supra) and found that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the said judgment cannot be mechanically made applicable. Thus, I am unable to appreciate the contention that there was no application of mind by this Court on the judgment cited by the petitioner in Khemchand (supra). Thus, this contention is devoid of any substance. On the strength of Union of India (UOI) Vs. Ibrahim Uddin and Another, the whole attempt of the petitioner is to re-argue the matter.

This is trite in law that by way of review, the matter cannot be permitted to be re-argued and re-agitated. This Court has assigned reasons in passing the detailed order. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous view cannot be subject matter of review. This view is taken by the Supreme Court in catena of judgments including Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, It was held that in exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C., it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. The same view is taken by this Court in Friends Housing Co-operative Society and others Vs. Tulsiram Kabra and another, Considering the aforesaid, I find no ingredients on which the order can be reviewed. The review petition is dismissed. No cost.