Review petitions may be heard by another Judge when rules permit, without re-appreciating the same merits.

A review under Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC is not confined only to the Judge who passed the original order. The Court distinguished the substantive limits of review from the forum competent to hear it, holding that another Judge may not re-appreciate or reconstruct the merits merely because a different view is possible, but the review is still maintainable before an assigned Judge when the original Judge is unavailable. Rule 3 of Chapter XXX of the High Court Appellate Side Rules permits the matter to be placed before the regular Single Judge Court or another Judge nominated by the Chief Justice, thereby preserving the remedy despite a change in judicial assignment.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a review petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable only before the Judge who passed the order; (ii) Whether a review petition can be heard by another Judge under Rule 3 of Chapter XXX of the High Court Appellate Side Rules when the original Judge is unavailable.

Issue (i): Whether a review petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable only before the Judge who passed the order.

Analysis: The reference turned on the proper understanding of the review jurisdiction and the limited scope of the earlier decision relied upon. The earlier decision was explained as laying down only that, in review, another Judge cannot re-appreciate or reconstruct the same findings merely because a different view is taken. It was not treated as a rule that a review petition must fail if the Judge who passed the order is no longer available. The relevant test remained that of Order 47, and the Court distinguished between the substantive limits on review and the forum competent to hear it.

Conclusion: The answer was in the negative. A review petition is not confined only to the Judge who passed the order.

Issue (ii): Whether a review petition can be heard by another Judge under Rule 3 of Chapter XXX of the High Court Appellate Side Rules when the original Judge is unavailable.

Analysis: Rule 3 of Chapter XXX expressly provides that where the Judge who passed the order has ceased to be a Judge of the Court or has ceased to sit at the particular Bench, the application is to be placed before the regular Court of the Single Judge dealing with that category of matters, or before another Judge assigned by the Chief Justice. The Court read this procedural rule harmoniously with the review provisions and held that the applicable procedural framework permits another Judge to hear the review when the original Judge is unavailable. The rule was treated as a valid procedure for advancing justice and avoiding defeat of the remedy by mere change of judicial assignment.

Conclusion: The answer was in the affirmative. A review petition can be heard by another Judge in the circumstances contemplated by the rule.

Final Conclusion: The reference was resolved by holding that the review petition need not be heard only by the Judge who passed the order, and the matter could proceed before the Judge assigned to review petitions.

Ratio Decidendi: A review petition may be heard by another Judge where the original Judge is unavailable, if the governing procedural rules so provide, and the review court cannot use the jurisdiction to re-appreciate or reconstruct the merits merely on a different view of the same material.

---