All HC: Can’t Invoke Penalty Proceedings u/s 129 of UPGST Act, 2017 For Search And Seizure Of Godown  ||  All. HC: Businessman Doing Business Activities Within Slum Can’t Be Called a Slum Dweller  ||  SC: No Charity Being Done By State For Paying Compensation to Person Whose Land Was Acquired  ||  Gauhati HC: Can’t Shift Burden of Proof on Accused if Multiple Witnesses of Crime Present  ||  SC: Contempt Notice Issued Against Patanjali For Continued Publishing of Misleading Advertisements  ||  SC: Registry Can’t Decide Whether or Not Review Petiton Merits Relook Through Curative Petiton  ||  Bom. HC: Imprisonment Exceeding Twelve Months Can’t Be Given For Default in Payment of Maintenance  ||  Cal. HC: Cannot Differentiate Between Contractual and Permanent Employees For Maternity Leave  ||  Supreme Court: Entering Into Sale Agreement With Minor is Void and Unenforceable  ||  SC: Information Disclosing Cognizable Offence to Be Recorded as FIR & Not in General Diary    

Abhijit Mishra vs. Union of India & Ors. - (High Court of Delhi) (06 Aug 2020)

A judgment may be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record



Present Review Petition has been preferred by the original writ Petitioner seeking review of the order passed by present Court in writ petition which was preferred as a PIL Review Petition for the benefit of advocates. The writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 29th July, 2020. The issue involved in present case is regarding power of Court to review its order under Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The present case is a PIL preferred by the party in-person for including Advocates in the definition of the word “professional” under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. Present Court is of the view that, the advocates are capable of filing their own litigation, if they wish to do so. On this point itself, present Court dismissed the writ petition as a PIL.

Under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, a judgment may be open to review, if there is a mistake 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 of CPC.

In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.

In view of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, there is no reason to entertain present review petition as there is no error, much less an error apparent on the face of the record, in order dated 29th July, 2020. The Review Petition is accordingly dismissed.


Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2024 - All Rights Reserved