Nenjing M. Marak and 2 Ors v. Garo Hills Autonomous District Council and 3 Ors

ORDER (Made by Hon'ble, the Chief Justice)

The review petitioner has come forward seeking review of the order of this Court dated 03.08.2023 passed in MC (WA) No.22 of 2023 in WA No.24 of 2023.

¶2The main contention of the review petitioner is that while filing an appeal in the Court of the Chief Executive Member, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council, have clearly mentioned that the order dated 28.10.2016 is illegal and no statement was made by the review petitioner in the appeal petition, which clearly indicates that the order was not a consensus one and no consent of the parties were there before passing the order dated 28.10.2016.

¶3In the review petition at grounds ix, it has been stated as follows:

"ix. That the private respondent filed writ petition vide WP (C)

No.321 of 2021 against the order dated 30.05.2019 before this

Hon'ble Court, but surprisingly there is not even a whisper in

the writ petition taking the plea on consensus order, therefore

the review petitioners while replying or filing the affidavit-in-

opposition was filed by the review petitioner by answering only

limiting to what is stated in the writ petition filed by the private

respondent but surprisingly the private respondent while arguing

the case or during the hearing of the case have been made a oral

submission what was not plead in the writ petition, ad have it

been that the private respondents have pleaded in the writ

petition taking the ground on consensus order the same could

have been objected by the review petitioners in their affidavit-

in-opposition to the writ petition No.321 of 2021."

¶4It is now fairly well settled by a series of decisions of the Hon'ble Court as also the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the scope of review is very minimal and it is circumscribed by the provisions of the statute. It would be relevant to refer to few Judgments to understand and appreciate the scope of review jurisdiction to find out if the petitioner has made out a case for reviewing the order. The Hon'ble Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in the case of The Special Officer, Kallal Co-operative Primary Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Karaikudi, Sivagangai District Vs. R.M.Rajarathinam and Others [Review Application (MD). No.82 of 2013] decided on 04.02.2015, held as follows:

"10... It is well settled that the scope of review is very limited. The review applicant cannot re-argue and he is not entitled for re-hearing on merits."

¶5In another decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madras in the case of Dhanalakshmi Vs. M.Shajahan and others reported in AIR 2004 Madras 512, it was opined that the power of review is not an appeal in disguise. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are extracted below: "11. From the above judgments, it is seen that the law is well settled inasmuch as the power of review is available only when there is an error apparent on

the face of the record and not on erroneous decision. If the parties aggrieved by the judgment on the ground that it is erroneous, remedy is only questioning the said order in appeal. The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. may be opened inter alia only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. The said power cannot be exercised as is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review application also cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". Similarly, the error apparent on the face of the record must be such an error, which must strikes one on mere looking at record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points, where there may conceivably be two opinions."

¶6Furthermore, in R.Mohala Vs. M.Siva and others in Review Petition No.61 of 2018 and WMP.No.10818 and 10819 of 2018 decided on 25.04.2018, one of us (SVNJ) sitting at the High Court of Madras elaborately discussed the scope of review and in Paragraph Nos.7 and 8, held as follows:

"7.The basic principle to entertain the review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is to correct the errors but not to substitute a view. The judgment under review cannot be reversed (or) altered taking away the rights declared and conferred by the Court under the said judgment; once a judgment is rendered, the Court becomes functus officio and it cannot set aside its judgment or the decree; no inherent powers of review were conferred on the Court; the review Court cannot look into the trial Court judgment; it can look into its own judgment for limited purpose to correct any error or mistake in the judgment pointed out by the review petitioner without altering or substituting its view in the judgment under review; the review court cannot entertain the arguments touching the

merits and demerits of the case and cannot take a different view disturbing the finality of the judgment; the review cannot be treated as appeal in disguise, as the object behind review is ultimately to see that there should not be miscarriage of justice and shall do justice for the sake of justice only and review on the ground that the judgment is erroneous cannot be sustained.

¶8It is settled law that even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for the Court to undertake review, as the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order under review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and in absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed."

¶7The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, while considering the scope of the power of review of the High Court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C., held as follows:

"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 C.P.C. The review petition of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. An error apparent on the face of the 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. The limitation of powers on court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. is similar to jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking review of the orders under Article 226."

¶8In the case in Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitri Devi, reported in 1997

(8) SCC 715, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:

"Under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia 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, CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1, 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."

¶9From a reading of the above referred Judgments, it can be fairly discerned that:

¶1Review is not an appeal in disguise.

¶2The 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 C.P.C.

¶3A wrong exposition of the law or a wrong application of the law and failure to apply the correct law cannot be a ground for review.

¶4The power to review is a restricted power given through a Court to go through the Judgment only to correct it or improve it, on the basis of some material which ought to have been considered, escaped consideration or failed to be placed before it for any other reason, but not to substitute a fresh or a second Judgment.

¶5The power of review cannot be invoked to correct the erroneous Judgment and the finality attached to a Judgment cannot be disturbed.

¶6Only errors which are apparent on the face of the record in the sense that errors which strike on mere looking at record can only be corrected and not those that require long drawn process of reasoning on point.

¶10The above are some of the basic principles on which the power to review rests. The said principles are not exhaustive but only illustrative.

¶11To review a Judgment / Order, the Applicants need to satisfy three basic requirements of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C., which are as under:

(i) From discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge (or) could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed (or) order made;

(ii) There is some mistake (or) error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment under review; and

(iii) or any other sufficient reasons."

¶12In the present case, the core grounds raised on which the review petition rests, in our considered opinion are beyond the scope of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Hon'ble High Court. The Review Applicant in the guise of the Review Petition wants this Bench to rewrite its Judgment, which is not possible under review jurisdiction. As already stated above review is not an appeal in disguise and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the Division Bench rightly confirmed the order of the learned Single Judge, which does not warrant any review.

¶13The Hon'ble Supreme Court in a recent decision reported in 2023 SCC Online SC 1406 Review Petition(Civil)No.1620 of 2023 in Civil Appeal No.1661 of 2020 (Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officer and another) in paragraph No.16 has laid down the law relating to the entertainment of review application which is extracted as follows:

"16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:-

(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

(iii) 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 justifying the Court to exercise its power of review.

(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected."

(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

(vii) 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.

(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision / judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."

¶14For all the above reasons, we find no merits in the Review Petition and the same deserves to be dismissed.

(B. Bhattacharjee) (S. Vaidyanathan)

Judge Chief Justice

Meghalaya

15.03.2024 "Sylvana PS"

HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA AT SHILLONG Review Pet. No. 1/2024 Date of order: 15.03.2024 1. Nenjing M. Marak 2. Smt. Peje Ch. Sangma 3. Shri Nengjin Ch. Sangma Vs. 1. Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC) represented by its Secretary, West Garo Hills District, Tura, Meghalaya. 2. Chief Executive Member (CEM), Revenue, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC), Tura, Meghalaya. 3. Executive Member (EM), Revenue, Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC), Tura, Meghalaya. 4. Smt. Kinti Ch. Sangma W/o (L) Ringgat Marak R/o Tochapara, P.O.Chengapara; P.S. Ampati, South West Garo Hills District,Meghalaya. Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. Vaidyanathan, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice B. Bhattacharjee, Judge Appearance: For the Applicants : Mr. P. T. Sangma, Adv. For the Respondents : Ms. N. Rajee, Adv. [For R 1-3] None for R 4 i) Whether approved for reporting in Law journals etc.: ii) Whether approved for publication in press: Serial No. 01 Supplementary 1 List