Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.18 seconds)Section 17 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Ajit Kumar Rath vs State Of Orissa & Ors on 2 November, 1999
4. This Tribunal is of the view that the above order was a detailed order
given after hearing both the counsels as well as the pleadings on
record. The power of review available to this Tribunal is the same as
has been given to a Court under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule
1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Hon‟ble Apex court has clearly
stated in Ajit Kumar Rath Vs. State of Orissa and others, (1999)
9 SCC 596 that: "a review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for
a fresh hearing or arguments or correction of an erroneous view
taken earlier, that is to say, the power of review can be exercised
NEERU DOUGALL 2026.02.03 17:16:50+05'30'
RA No.69/2025 in
OA No. 060/1089/2017
3
only for correction of a patent error of law or fact which stares in the
face without any elaborate argument being needed for establishing
it". This Tribunal can n ot review its order unless the error is
plain and apparent. It has clearly been further held by the Hon‟ble
Apex court in the said case that: Any other attempt, except an
attempt to correct an apparent error or an attempt not based on any
ground set out in Order 47, would amount to an abuse of the liberty
given to the Tribunal under the Act to review its judgment".
State Of West Bengal & Ors vs Kamal Sengupta & Anr on 16 June, 2008
5. Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matters of State of West Bengal and
others Vs. Kamal Sengupta and another, (2008)2 SCC (L&S)
735 scanned various earlier judgments and summarized the principle
laid down therein, which reads thus:
1