Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 20 (0.35 seconds)Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 145 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Sow Chandra Kanta And Another vs Sheik Habib on 13 March, 1975
In Sow Chandra Kante v. Sk. Habib
this Court observed: (SCC p. 675, para 1)
'1. ... A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant
resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent
mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial
fallibility. ... The present stage is not a virgin ground but
review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of
finality.'"
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos And ... vs The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius And ... on 21 May, 1954
The words "any other sufficient reason" have been interpreted in
Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar
Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean "a
reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the
rule".
Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon vs Union Of India on 31 July, 1980
14. Review of the earlier order cannot be done unless the court is
satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order,
undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. This
Court in Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India held as under:
Parsion Devi & Ors vs Sumitri Devi & Ors on 14 October, 1997
15. An error which is not self-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. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent
error. This Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi held as under:
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 October, 1963
Aribam Pishak Sharma 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.
Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 April, 2000
16. Error contemplated under the Rule must be such which is apparent
on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out
and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. The power of review
can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a
view. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground
for review. This Court, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India held as under:
T. C. Basappa vs T. Nagappa And Another on 5 May, 1954
In T.C. Basappa v. T.
Nagappa, this Court held that such error is an error which is a
patent error and not a mere wrong decision.