AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This review petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 16.07.2025 passed in RFA No.923/2018, whereby the said appeal preferred by the respondent Nos.1 to 5 was allowed by this Court.
Heard learned counsel for the review petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioners and learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat – Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020, (ii) S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan – (2023) SCC Online SC 185 (iii) S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy – Civil Appeal Nos.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (iv) Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer –2023 SCC Online SC 1406, wherein it is held as under:-
16.The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:—
(i)A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii)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.
(iii)An 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv)In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.”
(v)A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
(vi)Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii)An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii)Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
Upon consideration of the entire material on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, as held in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court.
In view of the foregoing reasons, the review petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. However, liberty is reserved in favour of the review petitioners to take recourse to such remedies as available in law as against the final judgment and decree dated 16.07.2025 passed in RFA No.923/2018 as well as the present order subject to all just exceptions and defences available to the respondents.