Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Manik Chandra Sasmal vs Rabindra Nath De on 20 November, 2014
Bench: Sudhansu Jyoti Mukhopadhaya, N.V. Ramana
ITEM NO.7 COURT NO.4 SECTION XVI
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) Nos. 27203-27205/2012
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 06/09/2011
in RVW No. 3101 to 3103 of 2004 passed by the High Court of
Calcutta)
MANIK CHANDRA SASMAL AND ORS. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
RABINDRA NATH DE Respondent(s)
(with interim relief and office report)
Date : 20/11/2014 These petitions were called on for hearing
today.
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Ranjan Mukherjee,Adv.
Ms. Aprajita Mukherjee, Adv.
Mr. S. Bhowmick, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Rohit Singh,Adv.
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Leave granted.
The appeals are allowed in terms of the Signed Order.
(Rajni Mukhi) (Suman Jain) Sr. P.A. Court Master Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by Rajni Mukhi Date: 2014.11.25 16:17:28 IST (Signed Order is placed on the file) Reason: IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NOS.10537-10539 OF 2014 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos. 27203-27205 of 2012) MANIK CHANDRA SASMAL AND ORS. APPELLANTS VERSUS RABINDRA NATH DE RESPONDENT O R D E R Leave granted.
These appeals have been preferred by the appellants against the judgment dated 6th September, 2011 passed by the High Court of Calcutta in R.V.W. Nos. 3101 to 3103 of 2004. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge while dealing with the merits of cases, in exercise of its power of procedural review, recalled the judgment and order dated 23rd July, 2004 passed in Revisional Application C.O. Nos. 1779-1781 of 1999.
In the present case the only question arises is as to whether it was open for the High Court to review the judgment and order on merits without discussing the mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
According to learned counsel for the appellants the impugned judgment has been passed by the learned Single Judge reviewing the earlier Judgment and Order dated 23rd July, 2004, on merit without discussing the mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent contended that earlier judgment & order dated 23rd July, 2004 was passed in Civil Revisional Application C.O. Nos.1779-1781 of 1999 without discussing the amended provision i.e. Section 2(vi) of the West Bengal Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 2000. For the said
- 2 -
reason, by impugned judgment the learned Single Judge recalled and reviewed the earlier order.
In reply it was contended on behalf of the learned counsel for the appellants that if the provisions were brought to the notice of the Court that could have been a ground for preferring the appeal but that cannot be a ground for reviewing the earlier judgment and order. It was further contended that no ground was shown by the learned Single Judge while passing the impugned judgment of 28 pages and reviewing the earlier judgment & order dated 23rd July, 2004 passed by the Court in Revisional Applications.
Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it is apparent that learned Single Judge while discussing the case on merit and deciding it in favour of the respondent failed to record any mistake or error apparent on the face of the said judgment & Order dated 23rd July, 2004 in order to exercise power to review under Order XLVII Rule-1 of CPC.
For the reason aforesaid, we set aside the impugned Judgment dated 6th September, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court at Calcutta in R.V.W. Nos. 3101 to 3103 of 2004, with liberty to the respondent to challenge the Judgment and order dated 23rd July 2004 in appeal, if it has any merit. If such an appeal is filed with application for condonation of delay, the Court may consider the question of condonation of delay taking into consideration the fact that the respondent was pursuing the matters before the wrong forum and the matters remained pending till today.
The appeals are allowed with the aforesaid observations.
.............................J. [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOLPADHAYA] .............................J. [N.V.RAMANA] NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 20, 2014