State of Rajasthan vs Masters Construction, Engineering and Contractors

Atul Kumar Jain, J.—In all these five matters, an order was passed on 5.2.2015 in Civil Misc. Appeals pending before this Court, appellant has filed application for review of that order under Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. Hon''ble the Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and Others, has held that the following grounds for review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:--

"(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

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki and OthersAIR 1922 112 (Privy Council) and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Another Vs. The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others, , 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 (UOI) Vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. and Others, .

(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 reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a 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."

Division Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Shri Brajraj Singh and Others Vs. State of Rajasthan and Others, has also held that Order 47 Rule 1 CPC does not give power to the court to examine the matter afresh while deciding review petition. It was further held in this case that review can be entertained on grounds of error apparent on face of record but unless error is self evident, an erroneous decision cannot be reheard and corrected.

In Parsion Devi and Others Vs. Sumitri Devi and Others, it was held that an error, which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise powers of review in exercise of review jurisdiction. It was further held in this case that there is clear distinction between erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of record. While first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of review jurisdiction.

In the case in hand, learned counsel for the review petitioner/appellant has argued at length in support of his review petition and written submissions in fifteen pages have also been submitted by the appellant. It has been argued on behalf of the review petitioner that his following rulings were referred by this Court in its impugned judgment but the rulings have not been considered, discussed or properly appreciated;

"(1) ONGC Ltd. Vs. Modern Construction and Company, ;

(2) Consolidated Engg. Enterprises Vs. Principal Secy. Irrigation Deptt. and Others,

(3) Esha Bhattacharjee Vs. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy and Others, "

At the very outset of the things it is made clear that the first two rulings mentioned above had not been relied upon by the appellant at the time when arguments on five civil misc. appeals were being advanced. Anyhow, I have gone through the aforesaid rulings also at this stage. I would like to give a brief mention of Basawaraj and Others Vs. The Spl. Land Acquisition Officer, which may be one of the latest judgment on the point. Section 5 of the Limitation Act was discussed in that case and the Hon''ble Apex Court held therein that the delay cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, the applicant should give adequate and enough reasons which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. Unless satisfactory explanation is furnished by the applicant, the court should not allow his application for condonation of his delay. Limited period cannot be extended only on equitable grounds. It was further held that the expression "Sufficient Cause" should be given a liberal interpretation to ensure that substantial just but only so long as negligence, inaction or lack of bonafides cannot be imputed to the party concerned. It is a settled legal proposition that law of limitation may harshly affect a particular party but it has to be applied with all its rigour when the statute so prescribes. The court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. A result flowing from a statutory provision is never an evil. A Court has no power to ignore that provision to relieve what it considers a distress resulting from its operation. The statutory provision may cause hardship or inconvenience to a particular party but the court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. The legal maxim "dura lex sed lex" which means " the law is hard but it is the law", stands attracted in such a situation. It has consistently been held that, inconvenience is not a decisive factor to be considered while interpreting a statute.

The Statute of limitation is founded, on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale. An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party''s own inaction, negligence or laches.

Learned counsel for the respondent has strongly opposed the review petition and following rulings have been submitted on behalf of respondent in this regard:--

"(1) Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi,

(2) Md. Ashraf Ali v. Debraj Wadhera (1995) Supp (2) SCC 654

(3) B.H. Prabhakar and Others Vs. M.D. Karnataka State Cooperative Apex Bank Ltd.,

(4) Dr. Subramanian Swamy Vs. State of Tamil Nadu and Others,

(5) Sanjeev Kumar Jain Vs. Raghubir Saran Charitable Trust and Others, "

I have perused the aforesaid rulings also. Thrust of the respondent in all these five review petitions is to the effect that the review petition do not lie unless the point agitated come within the ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and the review petitioner will have to prove that from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or the order was made or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any sufficient reason he desires to obtain a review of the impugned order made against him.

Hence, after going through oral and written arguments of both the parties, I am convinced that no case for review of the impugned order is made out by the review petitioner. On the basis of judgment of the Hon''ble Apex Court in Sanjeev Kumar Jain''s case (supra). Respondent has prayed for costs against the review petitioner, but in the circumstances of the case, this Court is not of the view that any cost should be imposed on the review petitioner.

Accordingly, all these five review petitions stand dismissed. Copy of this order be sent to the court below also.