Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurinder Kaur & Ors vs Ram Singh & Ors on 23 December, 2014
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
RA-CR-247-CII of 2014 in
FAO No. 4545 of 2014 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
RA-CR-247-CII of 2014 in
FAO No. 4545 of 2014
Date of decision: 23.12.2014
Gurinder Kaur and others
...Appellants
Versus
Ram Singh and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr. Ashwani Arora, Advocate
for applicants-appellants
****
Jitendra Chauhan, J. (Oral)
By way of the present application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the applicants seeks the review of the order dated 31.07.2014, passed by this Court.
The learned counsel for the applicants contends that this Hon'ble Court partly allowed the appeal of the applicants and granted a sum of Rs. 1,11,94,316/- and penal interest @ 12% was modified to simple interest @ 7.5% p.a. It has been further ordered that if the amount is not deposited within 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the judgment, the applicants will be entitled to interest @ 7.5% that liberty granted to the respondent to pay the amount within 60 days without interest and the same needs to be reviewed.
Heard.
KUMAR SUMIT 2015.01.13 13:14 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RA-CR-247-CII of 2014 in FAO No. 4545 of 2014 -2- In the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others, 2013 (5) Recent Apex Judgment, 62 (SC), it has been held as under:-
When the review will not be maintainable:-
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudication.
(ii)Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii)Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv)Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v)A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi)The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii)The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii)The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
There is no material error in the judgment of this Court. This Court has decided the case after fully appreciating the evidence. No ground is made out to review the judgment of this Court. Hence, the review petition is dismissed.
23.12.2014 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
sumit.k JUDGE
KUMAR SUMIT
2015.01.13 13:14
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document