Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court An error on the face of record should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning to strike MANU/SC/0741/2023 - (05 Jul 2023) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vs. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. and Ors.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">Present are Review Petitions preferred by Review Petitioner praying for review of the judgment passed in Civil Appeal titled Gemini Bay Transcription Pvt. Ltd. v. Integrated Sales Service Ltd. and Anr. whereby the said Civil Appeals filed by the Review Petitioner were dismissed. 
Power to review may not be exercised on the ground that decision was erroneous on merits as the same would be the domain of the Court of appeal. Power of review should not be confused with appellate powers as the appellate power can correct all manners of errors committed by the subordinate courts. 
Recently, this Court in a judgment passed in Civil Appeal between S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan and Ors. observed that, even though a judgment sought to be reviewed is erroneous, the same cannot be a ground to review in exercise of powers Under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). Further, in the case of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, this Court observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC, the Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. 
In another case between Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam SEB, present Court observed that, scope of review Under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC is limited and under the guise of review, the Petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It was further observed that, 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 record. 
It is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. 
Each and every argument having been considered by this Court in its judgment dated 10th August, 2021, the arguments advanced if accepted would result in expressing a different opinion on the points raised and decided, which present Court is afraid do not fall within the settled contours of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC relating to error apparent on the face of record. The other grounds of invoking the review power are neither existing nor have been raised in the present petitions. Accordingly, there is no good ground to allow the review petitions. Petitions dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Review, Jurisdiction, Grounds</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>