2024 (3) TMI 1348 - HC - Indian Laws

Review petition dismissed for exceeding Order 47 Rule 1 CPC scope, no error apparent on records

Nenjing M. Marak; Smt. Peje Ch. Sangma; Shri Nengjin Ch. Sangma Versus Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) ; Chief Executive Member (CEM) ; Executive Member (EM) ; Smt. Kinti Ch. Sangma, Meghalaya

The Meghalaya HC dismissed a review petition filed against a Division Bench order. The court held that the grounds raised fell beyond the scope of Order ... Seeking review of the order - scope of Review - Review of an order based on consensus - consent of the parties were there or not - error apparent on the face of records or not - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the core grounds raised on which the review petition rests, in our considered opinion are beyond the scope of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Court. The Review Applicant in the guise of the Review Petition wants this Bench to rewrite its Judgment, which is not possible under review jurisdiction. As already stated above review is not an appeal in disguise and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the Division Bench rightly confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge, which does not warrant any review. There are no merits in the Review petition - review petition dismissed. Issues:Review of an order based on consensus, Scope of review jurisdiction, Error apparent on the face of the record, Principles governing the power to review, Requirements for satisfying a review petition.Analysis:The review petitioner sought a review of an order dated 03.08.2023, claiming that the order was not a consensus one and lacked the consent of the parties involved. The petitioner argued that the absence of any mention of a consensus order in a writ petition filed by the respondent indicated a lack of consent. However, the court emphasized that the scope of review is minimal and circumscribed by statutory provisions. The court referred to various judgments to explain the limited nature of the review process, stating that review is not an appeal in disguise and can only be based on errors apparent on the face of the record.The court cited precedents to highlight that the power of review is not meant to correct erroneous judgments or substitute new views but to correct errors that are self-evident on the record. The court reiterated that review cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise and must strictly adhere to the provisions of Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. Furthermore, the court emphasized that even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for review, and finality attached to a judgment should not be disturbed unless there is a clear error on the face of the record.The court outlined the basic principles governing the power to review, emphasizing that review is not meant to reargue or readdress already decided issues but to correct errors that are immediately apparent on the record. The court also listed the requirements for satisfying a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, which include the discovery of new evidence, error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reasons. The court concluded that the grounds raised in the review petition were beyond the scope of the review provisions and did not warrant a review of the judgment.In a recent decision, the Supreme Court reiterated that a judgment can only be reviewed if there is a clear error apparent on the face of the record. The court emphasized that a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be used as a means to reargue already decided issues. The court highlighted that even a change in law or subsequent decisions cannot be grounds for review. Based on these principles, the court found no merit in the review petition and dismissed it accordingly.