Shri. Rama Sahu by lrs. vs Vinod Kumar Rawat & Ors. Civil Appeal 3601/2020 decided on 3 November 2020.
Judgment Link: https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2017/31367/31367_2017_35_1503_24560_Judgement_03-Nov-2020.pdf
HELD: Para 6.1 Judgment in Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.) and
Others, (2006) 4 SCC 78 & Lily Thomas vs. Union of India, (2000) 6 SC 224 relied on. It is further observed in the said decision that the words “any
other sufficient reason” appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC must
mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those
specified in the rule” as was held in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos vs Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526.
7. The dictionary meaning of the word “review” is “the act of
looking, offer something again with a view to correction or
improvement”. It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of
a statute. In the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi vs.
Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji, (1971) 3 SCC 844, this Court has
held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be
conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The
review is also not an appeal in disguise.
8. What can be said to be an error apparent on the face of the
proceedings has been dealt with and considered by this Court in the case of T.C. Basappa vs. T.Nagappa, AIR 1954 SC 440. It is held
that such an error is an error which is a patent error and not a
mere wrong decision. Case of Hari Vishnu Kamath vs. Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 233, relied on.
8.2 In the case of State of West Bengal and Others vs. Kamal
Sengupta and Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612, this Court had an occasion
to consider what can be said to be “mistake or error apparent on
the face of record”.
9. To appreciate the scope of review, it would be proper for this
Court to discuss the object and ambit of Section 114 CPC as the
same is a substantive provision for review when a person
considering himself aggrieved either by a decree or by an order of
Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or
where there is no provision for appeal against an order and decree,
may apply for review of the decree or order as the case may be in
the Court, which may order or pass the decree. From the bare
reading of Section 114 CPC, it appears that the said substantive
power of review under Section 114 CPC has not laid down any
condition as the condition precedent in exercise of power of review
nor the said Section imposed any prohibition on the Court for
exercising its power to review its decision. However, an order can
be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned
in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which has been elaborately discussed
hereinabove. An application for review is more restricted than that
of an appeal and the Court of review has limited jurisdiction as to the definite limit mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC itself. The
powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can
an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of power of review.
Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.
Daksha Legal 
It is nice
LikeLike