Supreme Court: 'Review is the Creation of a Statute'The Supreme Court by two judges bench comprising of Hon'ble Justices Mr. Ashok Bhushan and Mr. M.R. Shah quashed an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in review petition and was set aside for the matter between Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through Lrs. & Ors vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat & Ors. The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of...
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Supreme Court: 'Review is the Creation of a Statute'
The Supreme Court by two judges bench comprising of Hon'ble Justices Mr. Ashok Bhushan and Mr. M.R. Shah quashed an order passed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in review petition and was set aside for the matter between Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through Lrs. & Ors vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat & Ors.
The Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants stated that while assailing the impugned order passed by the High Court passed in the review application, High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction, while exercising the review jurisdiction and has acted beyond the scope and ambit of the review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and ought not to have set aside the specific finding given with respect to possession, which finding was based on appreciation of evidence before the learned trial court.
The counsel also remarked that, the High Court committed grave error in deleting para 20 of the final judgment passed in 2013 in the first Appealinexerciseofits review jurisdiction inasmuch as, as such, there was no error apparent on the face of the record, which was required to be corrected. Thus, while considering framing of issues the High Court mis-directed itself. The appellant prayed that merely because the specific issue with respect to possession was not framed by the trial court, it cannot be a ground to set aside the finding by the High Court.
The Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents while opposing the present appeal and supported the impugned order passed by the High Court had vehemently submitted that in facts and circumstances of the case the High Court has not committed an error in deleting papa 20 of the judgment dated in 2013 passed in the first appeal while exercising review jurisdiction.
Further submitted that no injunction from dispossession was sought and only injunction against further transfer was sought no issue was framed in respect of possession. It was contended that, therefore in absence of any specific issue framed by the Learned Trial Court in respect of possession of the property and when the suit was dismissed and even thereafter the appeal also came to be dismissed. The Respondent concluded, that the court had an inherent power to correct the error if subsequently it was bound by that some of the observations were made by error.
Therefore, the short question for consideration before the Court was, whether in the facts of the case, the High Court was justified in allowing there view application in exercise of powers under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC on the aforesaid grounds?
The court dealt with the dictionary meaning of the word "review" was stated "the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement". The Court said, "it cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute."
The Court relied the case of Patel Narsh Thaker shivs. Pradyuman singhji Arjun singhji, held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. There view is also not an appeal in disguise.
The Court elaborately discussed the scope and ambit of Section 114 of CPC as the same as a substantive provision for review when apersonconsidering himself aggrieved either by a decree or by an order of Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or where there is no provision for appeal against an order and decree, may apply for review of the decree or order as the case may be in the Court, which may order or pass the decree.
However, an order can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. An application for review is more restricted than that of an appeal and the Court of review has limited jurisdiction as to the definite limit mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC itself. The powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of power of review.
The Apex Court remarked, that the High Court had clearly overstepped the jurisdiction vested in the and had erred in deleting para 20 in exercise of powers under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
The Apex Court observed, "the High Court has committed a grave error in allowing the review application and deleting the observations made in para 20 of its order in 2103 passed in First Appeal in exercise of powers under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1CPC. Under the circumstances the impugned order is unsustainable and deserves to be quashed and set aside."