TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2016 (11) TMI 1184
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....y in filing the present review petition is condoned. 3. Heard on the question of admission. 4. The petitioner is seeking review of the order dated 29.04.2016 on the ground that he has filed the petition seeking direction against the revisional authority to comply with the mandatory provision of Section 71(2) of Madhya Pradesh Commercial Tax Act, 1994 (in short herein after written as 'the Act') and rectify the revision order in terms of the petitioner's application. The petitioner has argued that in view of the mandatory provision of Section 71 of 'the Act', the revisional authority was bound to decide the application within the prescribed limitation and on failure to decide the said application, one way or other, a ri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....filed by the petitioner is nothing but in the nature of appeal or revision, therefore, to reject the contention of the petitioner that the authority is bound to rectify its order, which was necessary to decide the scope of Section 71 of 'the Act'. The petitioner has right of rectification by virtue of deeming clause, therefore, this Court has held that the rectification as claimed is not permissible under Section 71 of 'the Act'. Hence, the scope of Section 71 has rightly been decided by this Court and held that the petitioner cannot be entitled to have the order of rectification in accordance with his application. 8. Even otherwise, the scope of review is very limited. Review is not as same as appeal. If the petitioner is ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....atter 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 for a review of judgment to the 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 Appella....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....take or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal is disguis....