TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (8) TMI 1251
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... of judgment dated 2.5.2015, whereby LPA preferred by the appellants was dismissed. 2. The 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. It is further contended that the Deputy Commissioner had only clarified his own order and this Court has wrongly concluded that he had infact reviewed it. The petitioner has also sought to invoke the provisions of the Government Grants Act to claim complete ownership and lastly has relied upon a judgment of this Court in Purshotam Vs. State of H.P., 1990 (2) SLC 206 to contend that alteration effected by a notification can....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review." 4. The words "any other sufficient reason" as contained above have been interpreted in the case of Chhajju Ram Vs. Neki, 1992 AIR (PC) 112 and approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos Vs. Most. Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors. 1995 1 SCR 520 to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specif....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on for this Court to have considered the submissions as are now sought to be made by the petitioners and therefore, even this contention of the petitioners is rejected being devoid of any merit. 9. This Court in M/s Harvel Agua India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of H.P. and others, Review Petition No. 4084 of 2013, decided on 9.7.2014, after taking note of various judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:- "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 m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....review of judgment is not maintainable if the only ground for review is that point is not dealt in correct perspective so long the point has been dealt with and answered. A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition of old and overruled arguments cannot create a ground for review. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order, which has the normal feature of finality." From the above observation, certain broad principles can be deduced regarding the maintainability/non-maintainability of the review petition:- (A) When the review will be maintainable:-....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pplication for review, court must confine its adjudication with regard to the material which was available at the time of initial decision. The happening of some subsequent event or development cannot be taken note of for declaring the initial order/decision as vitiated by an error apparent. (xii) Mere discovery of a new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review. The parties seeking review has also to show that such mater or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the Court earlier. We may clarify that the aforesaid principles are only broad guidelines and not caste-iron imperatives. 10. It is clear from the aforesaid discussion that t....