Review maintainable before later special leave petition, and overlooked valuation evidence justified reconsideration of compensation.

A review petition filed before a later special leave petition was not barred by the subsequent withdrawal of that petition, because the sequence of proceedings did not attract res judicata or similar objection. The Court also held that review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC can be justified where the record shows material errors and overlooked evidence causing injustice. Here, the High Court had failed to properly consider valuation material, comparable acquisitions, and reassessment of compensation for tea bushes, so its refusal to review was unsustainable. The judgment under challenge was set aside and the matter was remitted for fresh disposal.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the review application, filed before the special leave petition against the main judgment, was maintainable despite withdrawal of the earlier special leave petition; and (ii) whether the High Court was right in refusing review on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record.

Issue (i): Whether the review application, filed before the special leave petition against the main judgment, was maintainable despite withdrawal of the earlier special leave petition.

Analysis: The review petition had been filed before the special leave petition against the main judgment, and therefore the mere withdrawal of the special leave petition did not bar the review. The sequence of proceedings mattered, and the Court found that the objection based on res judicata or analogous principles could not defeat the review in these circumstances.

Conclusion: The objection to maintainability was rejected and the review application was held to be maintainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the High Court was right in refusing review on the ground that there was no error apparent on the face of the record.

Analysis: The scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is limited, but a court may correct its order where material mistakes apparent on the record have led to injustice. The record showed that the State had initially treated the land as deserving compensation at a far higher rate, comparable acquisitions had been valued similarly, and relevant material on valuation and classification had not been properly appreciated. The High Court had also failed to reassess compensation for the tea bushes if it disagreed with the District Judge on that component. These circumstances showed that the High Court had overlooked material evidence and had taken an unduly restrictive view of review.

Conclusion: The refusal to review was unsustainable and the matter deserved reconsideration by the High Court.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the judgment under challenge was set aside, and the review application was sent back to the High Court for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

Ratio Decidendi: A review is maintainable where it is filed before the later special leave petition against the main judgment, and review jurisdiction may be exercised when material errors apparent from the record show that the earlier judgment overlooked relevant evidence and thereby caused injustice.

---