RESERVED ON 06.09.2018 DELIVERED ON 26.10.2018 Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1957 of 2011 Appellant :- G.P. Srivastava Respondent :- District Judge, Etah & Another Counsel for Appellant :- G.K. Singh, R.D. Tiwari, V.K. Singh Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C., Manish Goyal
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra,J.
ORDER ON REVIEW APPLICATION NO. 126032 OF 2017.
1. We have heard petitioner Shri G.P. Srivastava who appears in person and Shri Sameer Sharma who appears for District Judge, Etah.
2. The Review Application has been filed praying for review of the judgment and order dated 01.03.2017 passed by the Division Bench of which one of us (Hon. Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra) was a member and therefore has been assigned to this bench for hearing by the Hon'ble Chief Justice.
3. There are as many as forty grounds taken in the Review Application. All of them relate to the merits of the punishment order passed by the Appointing Authority and the merits of the Writ Court's order being considered by the Division Bench in appeal. In effect, the review petitioner is praying for rehearing of the case.
4. A review cannot be appeal in disguise.
5. Such a Review Application cannot be entertained as the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in Meera Bhanja (Smt) Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt): (1995) 1 SCC 170 that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The review petition has to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. An error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
6. The Review Application is rejected.
7. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 26.10.2018 LBY