TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (11) TMI 879
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n negated by the judgement under review. 2. The main thrust of the petitioner in this review petition is that there is inherent contradiction of findings of fact recorded in paragraphs- 14 and 15 of the judgement under challenge, which has affected the ultimate decision of this court. He contends that paragraph-14 of the judgement, it has been recorded that there was no record placed by the petitioner to reveal the supply of sprinklers or Micro irrigation system had occasioned from Haryana to Himachal, while in paragraph-15 this court had made the following observations:- "15. The analysis of documents no doubt reveal that the petitioner-Company has brought the goods from Gurgaon (Haryana) to Mandi Branch, in the name of Sub Divisional Soil Conservation Officers Agriculture Department and then supplied / installed the irrigation systems in the fields of different farmers/beneficiaries under the 'Yojna' and the petitioner-Company received 80% cost of material as subsidy from the department of Agriculture and 20% cost from farmers / beneficiaries. The petitioner-Company has found to have been charged local taxes from the farmers, as evident from the invoices, which has been issued ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason. 90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words 'sufficient reason' in Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an Advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine "actus curiae neminem gravabit". 91. It is true that in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Another Vs. The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others [(1955) 1 SCR 520], this Court made observations as regard limitations in the application of review of its order stating : SCR p.529) "Before going into t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. Reliance was placed on S.Bagirathi Ammal vs. Palani Roman Catholic Mission (2009) 10 SCC 464, wherein it has been held as under: "12. An error contemplated under the Rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. When does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the Court. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the appellant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled re-hearing of the same issue but the issue can be decided just by a perusal of the records and if it is manifest can be set at right by reviewing the order. With this background, let us analyze the impugned judgment of the High Court and find out whether it satisfy any of the tests formulated above. "25. From the materials, we are satisfied that the c....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... in Order 47 of the Code must be taken into consideration. Section 114 of the Code although does not prescribe any limitation on the power of the court but such limitations have been provided for in Order 47 of the Code; Rule 1 whereof reads as under: "17. The power of a civil court to review its judgment/decision is traceable in Section 114 CPC. The grounds on which review can be sought are enumerated in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which reads as under: "1. Application for review of judgment.-(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply f....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, keeping in view the finding of fact arrived at that there had in fact been no novation of contract, such a course of action was not open. In any view of the matter, the same would amount to re- appreciation of evidence which was beyond the review jurisdiction of the High Court." 9. The Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Jammu & Kashmir in Muzamil Afzal Reshi vs. State of J&K & ors. Review (LPA) No. 16/2009 decided on 29.3.2013, to which one of us (Hon'ble the Chief Justice) was a party, has laid down that power of review is to be exercised in limited circumstances and that too as per the mandate of order 47 CPC. The remedy available in the shape of review cannot be allowed to be a masquerade appeal. It was observed::- "11) Let us take a look at Rule 1 of Order XLVII of CPC thus: 1. Application for review of judgement (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved - a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred. b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, afte....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....eliance can also be placed on a case law titled M/s Jain Studios Ltd. V. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. Reported as AIR SCW 2006, 3592. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 11 herein: "11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior Court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate Court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases." 15) The identical issue was raised before the Apex Court in case titled Smt. Meera Bhanja v. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary, reported as AIR 1995, SC 455. It is apt to reproduce paragraph 8 of the same herein:- ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court has made the following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record: An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ." 10. Thus what appears to be more than settled law is that an error contemplated under the rule must be such, which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must essentially be an error of inadvertence and definitely something more than a mere error and must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. If the error is so apparent that without further investigation or inquiry only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the applicant, in such circumstances, the review will lie. However, under the guise ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....petitioner are inter-State or intra-State, are findings of fact, which have already been determined by this court and cannot be interfered with, because power of review cannot be exercised on the ground that decision is incorrect or erroneous on merit as the same lies within the ambit of a 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. 14. Moreover, the judgement sought to be reviewed has to be read as a whole and the petitioner cannot be permitted to pick up or single out a paragraph and juxtapose the same with another paragraph to contend that there is an error apparent on the face of record. 15. Based upon the documents on record, it had been found by the Assessing Officer that company had created false documents by generating invoices in the names of the farmers from the State of Haryana. While in fact, the goods were transported to the State of Himachal Pradesh and the name of consigner was declared the department of agriculture. Whereas it was proved on record that company was not supplying the agriculture implements i.e. manua....