Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.43 seconds)Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma vs Aribam Pishak Sharma And Ors. on 25 January, 1979
In Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, this
Court answered in affirmative the question whether the High Court
can review an order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution and
proceeded to observe: (SCC p. 390, para 3)
"3. ... But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the
power of review. The power of review may be exercised
on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within
the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could
not be produced by him at the time when the order was
made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be
exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be
exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous
16
on merits. That would be the province of a court of
appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with
appellate powers which may enable an appellate court to
correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate
court."
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 October, 1963
In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P., another three-
Judge Bench reiterated that the power of review is not analogous to
the appellate power and observed: (AIR p. 1377, para 11)
"11. ... A review is by no means an appeal in disguise
whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected,
but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this
furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this
difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would
suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate
argument one could point to the error and say here is a
substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and
there could reasonably be no two opinions, entertained
about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the
record would be made out."
Article 137 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury on 16 November, 1994
In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury it was held
that:
Parsion Devi & Ors vs Sumitri Devi & Ors on 14 October, 1997
In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, the Court observed: (SCC p.
719, para 9)
"9. ... 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 under Order 47
Rule 1 CPC ... A review petition, it must be remembered
has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an
appeal in disguise'."
Article 145 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
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 were also noted: (AIR p. 137)
"An error which has to be established by a long-drawn
process of reasoning on points where there may
conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an
error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged
error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it
has to be established, by lengthy and complicated
arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of
certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of
the superior court to issue such a writ." (SCR pp. 901-02)
Shivdeo Singh & Ors vs State Of Punjab & Ors on 8 February, 1961
On an appeal to this Court it was held as
under: (SCC p. 390, para 3)
"It is true as observed by this Court in Shivdeo Singh v.
State of Punjab there is nothing in Article 226 of the
Constitution to preclude a High Court from exercising the
power of review which inheres in every court of plenary
jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct
grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are
definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review.
The power of review may be exercised on the discovery
of new and important matter or evidence which, after the
exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of
the person seeking the review or could not be produced by
him at the time when the order was made; it may be
exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the
face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on
any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the
ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That
would be the province of a court of appeal. A power of
review is not to be confused with appellate powers which
10
may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of
errors committed by the subordinate court."