TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 1103
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... the date on which certified copy of the order is issued would be excluded. This Tribunal thus found justification for CoD till the copy of the order passed by the High Court of Madras was obtained which according to the Review Application was in the month of November, 2019 and accordingly appeal should have been preferred within the period of limitation where the period from 29.08.2018 ( the date of impugned order) till 20.09.2018 (the date of filing of the Writ Petition) was to be counted for the purpose of limitation as per the order of the High Court of Madras. 2. The Review Applicant filed the application for CoD, inter alia, referring to the judgement of the High Court of Delhi in the case of J.M. Kohli vs. Madras Mohan Sahni in RFA No. 207 of 2012. The Counsel was engaged in the month of February, 2020 to defend the case and accordingly entire set of paper books were handed over to the Ld. Counsel and thereupon the period of Covid-19 pandemic remained the reason for non- filing of the appeal immediately thereupon. In the application for CoD, the appellant did not specify any reason for filing of the appeal with delay other than that the appellant could engage Lawyer in th....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ew of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of the Govt. of NCT of Delhi through the Secretary, Land and Building Department and Ors. versus K.L. Rathi Steels Limited & Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0262/2023. The relevant paras of the said judgment are quoted hereunder: 37. Rule 1 of Order XLVII of the S.C. Rules, 2013 made by virtue of Article 145 of the Constitution of India states that, in any civil case, review lies on any of the grounds stated under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Thus, the scope and power to review a judgment or order by the Supreme Court is restricted to the contours of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Further, though the power to review is conferred by the Constitution and is therefore a Constitutional power, that power is circumscribed by the CPC and S.C. Rules, 2013 which have been extracted above. Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC states that an aggrieved person - i) due to discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person aggrieved or the person seeking review could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or ii) due to a mistake or erro....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it needs to be emphasised. In my view, the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is in the nature of an exception to the expression "for any other sufficient reason". This would mean that if, in the mind of a Court there is a sufficient reason for the review of a judgment, it cannot be on the ground/reason covered in the Explanation to Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Thus, the circumstances mentioned in the Explanation would be an exception and is outside the scope and ambit of "for any other sufficient reason". 6. The scope of review application has also been dealt with by the Apex Court in the case of Parsion Devi & Ors. versus Sumitri Devi & Ord. reported in 1997(8) SCC 715. The relevant paras of the said judgement are quoted hereunder: A perusal of the application filed by the judgment debtors seeking review of the order dated 25.4.1989 shows that none of the grounds stated therein can strictly speaking be said to fall within the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The review petition in effect challenged the correctness of the order of Gupta, J. on the question of limitation without pointing out any "error apparent on the face of the record" which could have been revie....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Sharma, J. clearly over-stepped the jurisdiction vested in the court under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The observation of Sharma, J. that "accordingly", the order in question is reviewed and it is held that the decree in question is reviewed and it is held that the decree in question was of composite nature wherein both mandatory and prohibitory injunction were provided" and as such the case was covered by Article the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 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 later only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. While passing the impugned order, Sharma, J. found the order in Civil Revision dated 25.4.1989 as an erroneous decision, though without saying so in so many words. Indeed, while passing the impugned order Sharma, J. did record that there was a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record which not of such a nature, "Which had to be detected by a long drawn process of reasons" and proceeded to set at naught the order of Gupta, J. However, mechanical use of statutorily sanctified phrases cannot detract from ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. 21.7(vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsule the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. 21.8(viii) There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. 21.9(ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. 21.10(x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....an a year because exclusion of the period out of Covid-19 was for those litigants whose limitation was to expire during the period of Covid-19 and not for the benefit of those defaulters who failed to file appeal within a period of limitation expired prior to Covid-19. We would, further, refer to the relevant paras of the application for CoD to show what ground was taken for the aforesaid. Para 8, 10, 11 and 12 of the application for CoD are quoted hereunder: 8. That the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 23.10.2019 (annexed as Annexure A/20 to the Appeal) had dismissed the W.P. No.25406 of 2018 thereby granting the liberty to the appellant to approach the appropriate authority and to prefer the appeal. xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx xx 10. That, it was only in the month of February, 2020, the appellant could engage the undersigned to defend its cause and also thereafter, sufficient time was taken by the appellant to hand over the entire set to paperbooks to the undersigned. 11. That, unfortunately, in the month of March, 2020 due to widespread of pandemic COVID-19 situation and due to the reason of lockdown which was imposed by the Government of In....