Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
( C.M. Application No.52321 of 2015) Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
In view of the facts stated in the accompanying affidavit filed in support of the application for condonation of delay, the application in question is allowed. Delay is condoned.
.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.) (Anil Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 27.8.2019 dk/ .
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Case :- REVIEW PETITION DEFECTIVE No. - 211 of 2015 Petitioner :- Varun Kumar And Another 241(Fafo)2006 Respondent :- United India Insurance Company Ltd. Gond And Ors.
Counsel for Petitioner :- Avinash Chandra Counsel for Respondent :- Anil Kumar Srivastava,Vijay Kumar Tiwari Hon'ble Anil Kumar,J.
Hon'ble Saurabh Lavania,J.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record.
Present review petition has been filed by the applicants/review-petitioners, namely, Varun Kumar and Prashant Kumar for review of the judgment and order dated 8.4.2013 and correction order dated 17.07.2013 passed by this Court in F.A.F.O. No.241 of 2006 (Varun Kumar and another Vs. United Indian Insurance Company Limited and others) which has been decided alongwith F.A.F.O. No.512 of 2004 (United India Insurance Company Limited Vs. Varun Kumar and others).
Sri Avinash Chandra, learned counsel for the applicants/review-petitioners has pressed the present review petition on the following main ground:-
"Because the Hon'ble Court while passing the order dated 8.4.2013 and correction order dated 17.07.2013 did not provide any compensation for loss of estate though the documents relating to agriculture income was filed before the Hon'ble Court. As such this Hon'ble Court failed to consider the document available on records with regard to agricultural income and did not provide any compensation for loss of agricultural income and thus error apparent on record occurred while passing the impugned judgment."
Accordingly, it is submitted by learned counsel for applicants/review-petitioners that the pleas taken by the applicants/review-petitioners has not been taken into consideration by this Court while passing the judgement and order dated 8.4.2013 and corrected vide order dated 17.07.2013 in F.A.F.O. Nos. 241 of 2006 and 512 of 2004.
Sri Vijay Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for opposite party no.2/ owner of the vehicle submits that the grounds on which present review petition has been filed, was not taken by the applicants/review-petitioners while filing of F.A.F.O. No.241 of 2006( Varun Kumar and another Vs. United India Insurance Company Limited and others), so in view of the said facts review petition liable to be dismissed.
We have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record as well as the averments as made in F.A.F.O. No.241 of 2006.
From the perusal of paper book of F.A.F.O. No.241 of 2006 the admitted position which emerges is that the grounds on which review petition is being pressed was not taken by the applicants/review-petitioners in the F.A.F.O.
In order to decide the review petition, it would appropriate to see the ambit and scope of review. In this regard Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, AIR 1964 SC 1372, held that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.
Hon'ble the Apex Court in Subhash Vs. State of Maharastra & Another, AIR 2002 SC 2537, the Apex Court emphasised that Court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertain the review application unless there are circumstances falling within the prescribed limits for that as the Courts and Tribunal should not proceed to re-examine the matter as if it was an original application before it for the reason that it cannot be a scope of review.
This Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Another, AIR 1977 All. 163, rejected the review application filed on a ground which had not been argued earlier because the counsel, at initial stage, had committed mistake in not relying on and arguing those points, held as under:-
"It is not possible to review a judgment only to give the petitioner a fresh inning. It is not for the litigant to judge of counsel's wisdom after the case has been decided. It is for the counsel to argue the case in the manner he thinks it should be argued. Once the case has been finally argued on merit and decided on merit, no application for review lies on the ground that the case should have been differently argued."
In Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909, in a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC the Supreme Court held that the power of review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in reviewing its own orders, every Court including High Court inheres plenary jurisdiction, to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it.
Further, the review lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC. The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other " sufficient reason" must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in the said provision of C.P.C.
In View of the above discussion , the law of review can be summarized that it lies only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 CPC . The party must satisfy the Court that the matter or evidence discovered by it at a subsequent stage could not be discovered or produced at the initial stage though it had acted with due diligence. A party filing a review application on the ground of any other' sufficient reason' must satisfy that the said reason is analogous to the conditions mentioned in Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. Under the garb of review, a party cannot be permitted to re-open the case and to gain a full-fledged inning for possible for the Court to take a view contrary to what had been taken earlier. Review lies only when there is error apparent on the face of the record and that fallibility is by the over-sight of the Court.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Zahira Habibullah Sheikh Vs. State of Gujarat, (2004) 5 SCC 353, after placing reliance on its earlier judgments i.e. P.N. Eswara Iyer etc. Vs. Registrar Supreme Court of India, (1980) 4 SCC 680; Sutherdraraja Vs. State, (1999) 9 SCC 323; Ramdeo Chauhan Vs. State of Assam, AIR 2001 SC 2231; and Devender Pal Singh Vs. State of NCT of Delhi, AIR 2003 SC 3365; observed that review applications "are not to be filed for the pleasure of the parties or even as a device for ventilating remorselessness, but ought to be resorted to with a great sense of responsibility as well."
Thus, keeping in view the scope of review as well as the facts that grounds on which present review petition has been pressed by the applicants/review-petitioners was not taken in F.A.F.O. No.241 of 2006,we are of the view that on the ground pressed before us, the judgment and order dated 8.4.2013 and corrected vide order dated 17.07.2013 could not be reviewed.
Even otherwise from the perusal of the judgment and order under review, the position which emerges is that although the point on which review petition has been pressed, the applicants/ review petitioners neither pressed nor argued, the plea raised in the present writ petition while passing the judgment and order dated 8.4.2013 and corrected vide order dated 17.07.2013 passed by this Court in F.A.F.O. No.241 of 2006 (Varun Kumar and another Vs. United Indian Insurance Company Limited and others).
Thus, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case as well as the reasons mentioned herein above, we do not find any good ground or reason to interfere in the present review petition.
Accordingly, the review petition lacks merit and is dismissed.
.
(Saurabh Lavania,J.) (Anil Kumar,J.) Order Date :- 27.8.2019 dk/