AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Sashikanta Mishra,J. By means of this application, the petitioner seeks review of the judgment passed by a Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court on 24.3.2023 in W.P.(C) No.3619/2012. Be it noted that the review petitioner and another person namely, Prafulla Chandra Samal (since dead and substituted by his legal heirs) were the petitioners in the aforementioned Writ Petition.
The facts relevant only for deciding the present review are as follows: -
The present Opposite Party Nos.1 to 3 (who were Opposite Party Nos.3, 4 and 5 in the Writ Petition) filed objection under Section 9(3) of the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (For short, “OCH & PFL, Act”), registered as Objection Case No.4091 of 1992 before the Consolidation Officer, Chhatia, seeking to challenge the entries in Sikim Khata No.54 of the 1929 settlement corresponding to Sikim Khata No.67 of the 1977 settlement and particularly, the note of possession recorded in the R.O.Rs. in favour of the father of the review petitioner. By order dated 29.06.1999, the Objection Case was allowed granting the relief claimed by the objectors.
Feeling aggrieved, the review petitioner preferred appeal under Section 12 before the Deputy Director, Consolidation, registered as Appeal Case No.113/1999. It was contended that the succession to the Sikim tenants, whose names were reflected in the 1989 and 1910 settlement R.O.Rs. was undisputed and the objectors being strangers could not be treated as successors of Samal family. However, by order dated 09.05.2000, the appellate Court dismissed the appeal confirming thereby the order passed by the Consolidation Officer.
Being further aggrieved, the review petitioner filed revision under Section 36 of the Act. The Revisional Court also declined to interfere with the orders passed by the authorities below. As such, the petitioners approached this Court in W.P.(C) No.3619/2012, challenging the orders passed by the authorities below. This Court, by a detailed judgment passed on 24.3.2023, found no merit in the Writ Petition and dismissed it. Said judgment is sought to be reviewed in the present application.
Pursuant to notice, Opposite Party Nos. 1 to 3 have entered appearance but have not filed any counter. They preferred to make oral submissions. None appeared for Opposite Party Nos. 6 to 8.
Heard Mr. S.K. Mishra, learned Senior counsel with Miss. P. Mohanty for the review petitioner, Mr. A.P. Bose, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 and Mr. A.K. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.3. The State counsel represented the State opposite parties, namely, Opposite Party Nos.4,5,9 and 10.
Mr. Mishra would argue that the judgment of the Hon’ble Single Judge was based on an incorrect factual and legal premise, inasmuch as the settled position of law that the consolidation authorities have no right to determine Sikim tenancy was not considered. Mr. Mishra further submits that the specific grounds raised in the Writ Petition by the petitioners were not considered by the Hon’ble Single Judge. According to Mr. Mishra, these are the errors apparent on the face of the record, necessitating review of the judgment.
Per contra, Mr. Bose, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party Nos.1 and 2 would submit that the scope of review is very limited and cannot be equated with an appeal. The review petitioner, instead of challenging the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge before the higher forum, has sought to reagitate the same issue before the same forum in the garb of review, which is not permissible.
Mr. Tripathy, learned counsel appearing for Opposite Party No.3 also raised similar argument as Mr. Mr. Bose and further submits that the Hon’ble Single Judge refused to interfere as he found no infirmity in the concurrent findings of facts rendered by all three authorities below.
Learned State counsel submits that this is essentially a private dispute in which the State has no specific role to play. He however, submits that the scope of review is indeed very limited and unless a blatant error of law or fact is demonstrated, the Court would be slow to review its judgment.
Before examining the scope of review, which is fairly well settled, the Court would like to keep in perspective the fact that all the three authorities exercising the respective powers under OCH and PFL Act have concurrently rejected the claim of the review petitioner on merits. It is trite that concurrent findings of facts are not to be interfered with routinely by this Court exercising certiorari jurisdiction.
Coming to the judgment sought to be reviewed, it is seen that all relevant facts and laws as reflected in the case law cited by the parties were considered to hold that there was no scope for interference. It is argued that the grounds raised in the Writ Petition were not considered. Firstly, even accepting that the same is correct, then also it would not be a ground for review but of appeal. Even otherwise, it is seen that this Court extracted the specific grounds raised by the petitioner in the Writ Petition verbatim under Paragraph-4 of the judgment. It is submitted that specific findings were not given under each of the grounds. This Court is unable to accept such contention as a ground for review as the Hon’ble Single Judge found further justified reasons to not interfere. This Court also referred to the judgments cited at the bar. But then, on facts, held that the consolidation authorities exercising power like civil Court have the jurisdiction to decide the right, title and interest of the parties. So, it cannot be said that the judgment was passed on non-consideration of the grounds raised.
Certain further grounds were raised during hearing of the review application by submitting that the same were pleaded in the Writ Petition. But it is well settled that if a party chooses to urge only some of the grounds taken in the Writ Petition, it implies he has forgone the others. As already stated, the Hon’ble Single Judge has extracted the grounds that were urged before him under Paragraph-4 of the judgment.
After hearing the parties at length, this Court finds that what the review petitioner essentially wants is a substitution of the view taken by this Court in the judgment. This can hardly be a ground for review as allowing it would amount to entertaining an appeal in the guise of review. Even assuming that the judgment is erroneous on facts and law, the Petitioner can only challenge it before the higher forum as once it is pronounced, it cannot be simply altered.
It would now be proper to refer to certain case laws in this regard. In the case of Malleeswari v. K. Suguna1, the Supreme Court held as follows: -
“15.It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power of review is different from appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions:
15.1The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.2
15.2Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.3
15.3In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.4
15.4The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power.5
15.5The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered.6 Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors.7
16.To wit, through a review application, an apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to explain the said error. The intimation of error at the first blush enables the court to correct apparent errors instead of the higher court correcting such errors. At both the above stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted.”
In short, a wrong decision is not akin to a decision containing error apparent on the face of the record.
It would also be worthwhile to refer to the following observations of the Supreme Court in its judgment rendered in the case of Sow Chandra Kante v. Sk. Habib2:-
“A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient.”
From the foregoing analysis of facts and law, this Court is convinced that no ground for review of the judgment passed in the writ petition is made out. The Review Application therefore, stands dismissed.