Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 29 (0.82 seconds)Section 114 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Parsion Devi & Ors vs Sumitri Devi & Ors on 14 October, 1997
In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (Supra) it was
held as under: (SCC p. 716)
―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 selfevident 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 Order 47 Rule 1
CPC it is not permissible for an
erroneous decision to be ‗reheard and
corrected'. There is a clear
distinction between an erroneous
decision and an error apparent on the
face of the record. While the first can
LPA 405/2021 Page 19 of 26
Signature Not Verified
Digitaaly Signed
By:BHUPINDER SINGH
ROHELLA
Signing Date:25.01.2023
17:01:59
Neutral Citation Number: 2023/DHC/000552
be corrected by the higher forum, the
latter only can be corrected by
exercise of the review jurisdiction. A
review petition has a limited purpose
and cannot be allowed to be ‗an
appeal in disguise'.‖
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs Aribam Pishak Sharma And Ors. on 25 January, 1979
State of Punjab (Supra) and observed: (Aribam
Tuleshwar case (Supra), SCC p. 390, para 3)
―3.
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos And ... vs The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius And ... on 21 May, 1954
In Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar
Poulose Athanasius (supra) this Court interpreted
the provisions contained in the Travancore Code
of Civil Procedure which are analogous to Order
47 Rule 1 and observed:
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 October, 1963
In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of
A.P. (supra) it was held that a review is by no
means an appeal in disguise whereof an erroneous
decision can be corrected.
Shivdeo Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 8 February, 1961
State of Punjab (Supra) and observed: (Aribam
Tuleshwar case (Supra), SCC p. 390, para 3)
―3.
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde And ... vs Millikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale on 25 September, 1959
The following
observations in connection with an error apparent
on the face of the record in Satyanarayan
Laxminarayan Hegde v. Millikarjun Bhavanappa
Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137 were also noted:
Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury on 16 November, 1994
8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury, (1995) 1 SCC 170 while quoting with
approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar
Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (supra) this
Court once again held that 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
CPC.