Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.18 seconds)Section 114 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Section 151 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Chandrakant Jagannath Manjrekar And ... vs Shripad Vaikunth Naik on 20 January, 1988
22. I am fortified in my observations from the judgments of the Apex Court in the matters of Chandrakant v. Shripad reported in AIR 1989 Bom 91, P.N. Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singh reported in AIR 1970 SC 1273, Amerjeet Singh v. Bhagwana Kaur reported in 1977 WLN (UC) l, Ram Mehar v. Union of India reported in AIR 1987 Delhi 130, Shiv Deo Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909, Manohar Lal v. State reported in AIR 1970 Madh Pra 131.
Laxmi Narain Mehar vs Union Of India & Ors on 24 February, 1997
22. I am fortified in my observations from the judgments of the Apex Court in the matters of Chandrakant v. Shripad reported in AIR 1989 Bom 91, P.N. Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singh reported in AIR 1970 SC 1273, Amerjeet Singh v. Bhagwana Kaur reported in 1977 WLN (UC) l, Ram Mehar v. Union of India reported in AIR 1987 Delhi 130, Shiv Deo Singh v. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909, Manohar Lal v. State reported in AIR 1970 Madh Pra 131.
Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury on 16 November, 1994
23. I am further of the review that the scope of the power of review as envisaged under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. is very limited and the review must be confined strictly only to the errors apparent on the face of record. Re-appraisal of the evidence on the record for finding out the error would amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which is not permissible by the statute. 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 scope for exercise of power by this Court while dealing with and deciding a review petition is very limited confined within the four-corners of the statute as referred to above.
1