Supreme Court on its ‘power to review’ in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors

In “Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors”, Review Petition (C) No. 739 of 2012, in Civil Appeal No. 7944 of 2010, (decided on 23.04.2013) the Hon’ble Supreme Court delved upon its power or review under Article 137 of Constitution of India, Part VIII Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules, 1966, and Order XLVII, Rule 1(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Hon’ble court after going through the aforesaid provisions, observed as under:

“The following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

(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 him;

(ii)  Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason” [Para 12]

The words “any other sufficient reason” has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520, to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. [Para 13]

The Court further observed that:

(i) In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Hence, in review jurisdiction, the court shall interfere only when there is a glaring omission or patent mistake or when a grave error has crept in the impugned judgment. [Para 24]

(ii) 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. [Para 23]

(iii) The power of review jurisdiction can be exercised for the correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. [Para 22]

The Court also quoted following case law:

Parsion Devi & Ors. vs. Sumitri Devi & Ors., (1997) 8 SCC 715, which held as under:

“9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 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 the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule I CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC 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".

--

Supplement from: 

lawbeed.com

--

Haider Ajaz

(Advocate)