2015 (8) TMI 1251 - HC - Indian Laws

Court dismisses review petition for exceeding scope of procedure rules; petitioners to bear costs.

The Court dismissed the review petition as the issues raised did not fall within the scope of Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil ... Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure - review petition - review has primarily been sought on the ground that as per clause 11 of the Grant of Nautor Scheme, 1975, a restriction of only 15 years in respect of alienation was provided, whereas the Court has taken this period to be 20 years - Held that:- The questions now sought to be raised in this petition cannot be gone into because the power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision is incorrect or erroneous on merit, as the same lies within the ambit of higher court having appellate power which alone is in a position to correct the error committed by the subordinate courts by virtue of power of appeal conferred on the said court by some statute, of course subject to the exception that the error is otherwise apparent on the face of record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled to re-hearing and this Court while exercising power of review cannot sit in appeal over its own order. Having said so, it can safely be concluded that the petitioners have failed to make out a case within the four corners of Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Accordingly, we find no merit in this Review Petition and the same is dismissed Issues:Review of judgment based on interpretation of time restriction clause in a scheme, applicability of Government Grants Act for ownership claim, reliance on previous judgment, principles governing review petitions.Interpretation of Time Restriction Clause:The petitioners sought a review of a judgment based on the interpretation of a time restriction clause in a scheme. They argued that the Court incorrectly determined the period of restriction to be 20 years instead of 15 years as stated in the scheme. The Deputy Commissioner's role in clarifying the order was also contested. The Court emphasized that the official respondents were the best authorities to confirm the time period of the restriction, and the Deputy Commissioner's actions were previously addressed in the order.Applicability of Government Grants Act:The petitioners claimed complete ownership under the Government Grants Act after receiving a grant under a specific scheme. The Court clarified that once a grant is made under a scheme, it is governed by the provisions of that scheme and not by the Government Grants Act. The ownership claim was to be determined based on the scheme's provisions.Reliance on Previous Judgment:The petitioners relied on a previous judgment to support their case, arguing that alterations through notifications could only apply to transactions post-notification. However, the Court rejected this contention, stating that it was not part of the original plea and was not argued during the proceedings, hence lacking merit for consideration.Principles Governing Review Petitions:The Court outlined principles for the maintainability of review petitions, emphasizing that reviews are not avenues to correct erroneous decisions but are limited to errors apparent on the record. The judgment highlighted scenarios where reviews are maintainable, such as new evidence discovery or manifest errors on record. It also specified instances where reviews are not maintainable, including repeating old arguments and seeking re-hearing of issues already settled.Conclusion:The Court dismissed the review petition, stating that the issues raised did not fall within the scope of Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It reiterated that the power of review cannot be used to challenge the correctness of a decision on its merits, as that falls under the jurisdiction of appellate courts. The petitioners were directed to bear their own costs as the review lacked merit.