AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment and order dated 27.03.2024 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5167 of 2023 (Coram. S. G. Mehre J, as then he was), the original respondent no.5 has preferred this Review Application. The review applicant is father-in-law of respondent no.1.
There appears to be a marital discord between respondent no.1 and her husband i.e. son of the present applicant. Several proceedings have arisen out of the said marital discord. Alleging that respondent no.1 has forcefully entered the residential house, the applicant lodged application under the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 (for short “Act of 2007”) before the Competent Authority seeking protection of his residence.
After hearing the parties, the said proceeding came to be allowed. Feeling aggrieved thereby, the respondent no.1 with her mother approached this Court vide Writ Petition No.5167 of 2023. After hearing the parties, with a detailed reasoning judgment and order, this Court allowed the petition in following terms:
ORDER
(i)The petition is allowed.
(ii)The impugned judgments and orders of the Maintenance Tribunal passed in File No. 2022/Je.Na.Ni.Ka/Appeal/CR-3 dated 20.03.2023 and order of learned District Collector, Nanded in file No.2023/MaShaKa-1 /Desk2/Pol-6/CR-67 dated 27.04.2023 stands quashed and set aside.
(iii)The other legal remedies to protect the shelter under PWDV Act may be exercised by her, determining her right to stay in shared household as per her case.
(iv)If she fails to prove that she has right to stay in the suit premises, the respondent would be at liberty to file appropriate remedy under the concerned law and Act of 2007.
(v)To take care of the comfort, health and safety of the senior citizens, the petitioner/daughter-in-law is restrained from creating any nuisance that may cause discomfort to his life.
(vi)Her mother and her relative should not stay with her in the suit premises till her rights to reside in the suit premises is determined by the competent Court of law.
(vii)No order as to costs.
(viii)Rule is made absolute in above terms.
As against the said judgment and order, the review applicant has filed this Review Application.
Mr. S. G. Dodya, learned Advocate for the petitioner has proposed following grounds seeking review:
Respondent no.1/writ petitioner did not file copy of her reply which she had filed before the Authority under the Act of 2007.
The documents placed on record before the Authority were also not brought to the notice of this Court.
This Court although relied upon the judgment and order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of S. Vanitha Vs. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and Others, reported at (2021) 15 SCC 730 , has not given any time frame to the writ petitioner to file Domestic Violence proceedings.
These are the three grounds on which the review applicant has preferred review of the judgment and order passed by this Court in the Writ Petition.
Mr. S. G. Dodya, learned Advocate further contends that subsequent developments that the respondent no.1 has left the house and started residing elsewhere needs to be appreciated to restore the protection granted by the first Authority under Section 4 and 5 of the Act of 2007. He also makes a submission that the applicant is ready and willing to offer alternate residence to respondent no.1 in view of the provisions of Domestic Violence Act. On this count, Mr. Dodya submits that the Review Application be allowed and the judgment and order dated 27.03.2024 be recalled.
Mr. Y. K. Bobade h/f Mr. A. B. Shinde, learned Advocate for respondent no.1 and 2 would strongly oppose the petition. He would submit that respondent no.1/writ petitioner has placed ample documentary material on record for consideration of the case on merit. He would submit that the judgment and order passed by this Court was rendered after due appreciation of the facts and record placed on record. That, nothing prevented the petitioner from placing on record such documents which according to them were deficit while adjudication of the Writ Petition. With this, prayer is made to dismiss the review petition.
I have heard both the sides extensively. It is a trite law that a Review Application under Order 47 read with Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code can neither be used as an Appeal in disguise nor can a Review Application be filed to fill up the lacuna or to change the view taken by a Court in the light of any subsequent event. For that, this Court is well guided by the latest pronouncement of judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna and Another, reported at 2025 INSC 1080. The paragraph nos.15 and 17 of the said judgment are reproduced 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.
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.
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.
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.
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. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors.
17.Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows:
17.1The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.
17.2Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
17.3Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason’ means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories
The contention that the respondent no.1/writ petitioner did not file copies of her pleadings filed before the first authority cannot be a ground for seeking review of the judgment and order passed by this Court. The same analogy also applies to the other documents which the petitioner refers. The Court although referred to S. Vanitha case, however non granting or directing the respondent no.1 to file the D.V. proceedings itself will not be a ground to seek review of the judgment and order passed by this Court.
The subsequent developments referred by the petitioner about the alternate residence adopted by the respondent no.1 is also not a ground available to seek review. Provision under Section 19(1) of the D.V. Act does not affect the merits of the judgment and order passed by this Court nor can the same be a ground on which the judgment and order passed by this Court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the Court could be reviewed. For these reasons, Review Petition stands dismissed.