Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Himachal Pradesh High Court

Partap Singh Thakur vs M/S Beli Ram And Sons on 2 August, 2019

Author: Tarlok Singh Chauhan

Bench: Tarlok Singh Chauhan

IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA Review Petition No. 92 of 2019.

.

Date of decision: 02.08.2019.

    Partap Singh Thakur                                                          Petitioner

                                         Versus





    M/s Beli Ram and Sons                                                   ..Respondents.



    Coram

The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge.

Whether approved for reporting ?1 No For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajinder Singh, Advocate.

For the Respondents : Nemo.

Tarlok Singh Chauhan, Judge ( Oral ) Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner after having argued for a long time, has failed to find out any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

2. It is more than settled that 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-

1

Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the Judgment ?

::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:42:57 :::HCHP 2

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 Orde 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". (See: Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and others (1997) 8 SCC 715).

3. To justify exercise of review jurisdiction, an error must be self-evident. The review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view.

4. As observed above, the petitioner has failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the review petition is dismissed.

    2nd August, 2019                                 ( Tarlok Singh Chauhan),
         (GR)                                                  Judge




                                             ::: Downloaded on - 29/09/2019 01:42:57 :::HCHP