Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 25 (2.51 seconds)Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury on 16 November, 1994
23.A review petition has to be entertained only on the face of the error apparent on the face of record but not on any other reason in the considered opinion of this Court. The limitation of the power of a Court of law under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is akin to the jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking review of the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution as per decision Meera Bhanja V. Nirmal Kumar Choudhury (1995) 1 SCC at page 170.
Section 6 in The Hindu Minority And Guardianship Act, 1956 [Entire Act]
Parsion Devi & Ors vs Sumitri Devi & Ors on 14 October, 1997
14.In support of the contention that rehearing the matter for deducting an error in the earlier decision and then correcting the same do not fall within the purview of review jurisdiction, the learned counsel for the respondent /wife cites the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parsion Devi and others V. Sumitri Devi and others (1997) 8 SCC 715 at page 716 wherein it is inter alia observed as follows:
K. Jagannathan vs A.M. Vasudevan Chettiar And 12 Others on 25 January, 2001
18.In the decision of this Court in K.Jagannathan V. A.M.Vasudevan Chettiar and others (2001) 1 M.L.J. 614 it is held that 'Admittedly the mother has not alienated the property of the minor. Under the document joint family properties were divided and the minor was represented by his mother as guardian. Though father is a natural guardian as per Sec.6, it was the father who permitted the mother to act as the guardian of the minor and he did not raise any objection.'
K. Gopalakrishnan, Minor By Next Friend ... vs Sankara Narayanan And Ors. on 4 October, 1967
Indeed, the ambit of review is for review of 'error apparent' only and not to review the judgment/order, even if the parties are placed in a situation to satisfy the Court that the order under review is an erroneous one as per decision Ahmedabad Electricity Company Limited V. State of Gujarat AIR 2003 Guj 157 (159) D.B. The aim is not to enable a Judge to write a second judgment because the first one was wrong as per decision in Krishnan V. Narayanan AIR 1951 Madras at page 660.
Mohan Lal Bagla vs Board Of Revenue And Ors. on 11 August, 2004
25.The learned counsel for the respondent/wife cites the decision in Mohan Lal Bagla V. Board of Revenue AIR 2005 All 308 wherein it is held as follows:
Union Of India (Uoi) vs Paul Manickam And Anr. on 13 October, 2003
In this connection, it is apt for this Court to cite the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Union of India V. Paul Manickam AIR 2003 SC 4622, 4629 wherein it is held that 'the Court will not entertain a review petition with an entirely new substratum of issues or where there is suppression of facts.'
Jai Prakash Khadria vs Shyam Sunder Agarwalla & Anr on 12 May, 2000
8.He also relies on the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jai Prkash Khadria V. Shyam Sunder Agarwalla and another in (2000) 6 Supreme Court Cases 598 at page 599 wherein it is held that 'orders relating to custody of children are by their very nature not final but are interlocutory in nature and subject to modification at any future time upon proof of change of circumstances requiring change of custody but such change in custody must be proved to be in the paramount interest of the child.'
Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India & Ors. on 5 April, 2000
A review means the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement and that the same is also not an appeal in disguise as per decision Lily Thomas V. Union of India AIR 2000 SC 1650 (1652). Also there cannot be a reappraisal of the entire evidence on record for finding an error. It is needless to state that if there is reappraisal, it will amount to exercise of appellate jurisdiction, which is not permissible.