Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 47 Rule 1—Review of judgment—Maintainability—A review petition would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason.
[Para 13]
Order 47 Rule 1—Review—Jurisdiction—In exercise of review jurisdiction, the court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are possible in a matter.
[Para 26]
Order 47 Rule 1—Review—Jurisdiction—Court’s jurisdiction of review is not the same as that of an appeal—A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the court to exercise its powers of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
[Para 16]
Order 47 Rule 1—Review of judgment—High Court has taken great pains to discuss the three circumstances as alleged in Order 47 of CPC for maintaining a review petition—Special Leave Petition was disposed of with an observation that if the respondents were able to obtain such documents, it would be open to them to file a review petition—What is relevant is that the Apex Court had even then declined to interfere with the findings on merits—Under the grab of liberty granted to them, the respondents obtained certified copies of the revenue records and enclosed them with second set of review petitions while photocopies were already on record—No explanation offered regarding discovery of any new material—Non-production of relevant documents on the part of the respondents at the appropriate stage cannot be a ground for seeking review of the judgment—Recourse to successive review petitions against the same order is impermissible—Second set of review petitions were nothing short of an abuse of the process of court and ought to have been rejected by the High Court as not maintainable, without having gone into the merits of the matter—Impugned judgment is set aside and common judgment and order is restored—Appeals allowed.
[Paras 27, 28, 30, 33, 35 & 36]