STATE OF HARYANA Vs. MOHINDER SINGH
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: PUNJAB & HARYANA)
STATE OF HARYANA
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.)The above appeals have been filed against the common order dated 14. 05.1999 passed by a division bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in a batch of review applications filed in CWP no. 16358 of 1997, whereunder the court ordered as follows:-
"Since there was some doubt in the minds of the respondents regarding the true import of the judgment in Chhotu Ram's case (supra) , against which SLP has been dismissed by the Apex Court, therefore, we have clarified now that each OTA would be entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 w. e. f. January 01, 1994 irrespective of whether he has completed ten years of service as such or not. Now the respondents would carry out the aforesaid directions subject to the arrears being calculated for a period of three years and two months as was indicated in our order dated May 14, 1998, which is under review. "
(2.)Earlier, the learned judges by an order passed on 14. 05.1998 had chosen to finally dispose of the writ petition on the ground that it stood rendered infructuous, except in respect of issuing some directions. It is unnecessary for us, having regard to the view we intend taking, in these appeals to dwell at length on the details of the case on merits.
(3.)Learned additional solicitor general 198 appearing for the appellant-state strongly contended that the High Court could not have passed the order under challenge In the purported exercise of its powers of review and the order under challenge is liable to be set aside on this ground alone, dehors even the infirmities in the ultimate decision on merits. Reliance has been placed in support thereof on the decision reported in parsion Devi and Ore. v. Sumitra Devi and ore. wherein it has been observed as follows:-
"9.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 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. In exercise of the jurisdiction under order 47 rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". 10. Considered in the light of this settled position we find that Sharma, J. clearly overstepped the jurisdiction vested in the Court under order 47 rule 1 CPC. The observations of Sharma, J. that "accordingly, the order in question is reviewed and it is held that the decree in question was of composite nature wherein both mandatory and prohibitory injunctions were provided" and as such the case was covered by Article 182 and not article 181 cannot be said to fall within the scope of order47 rule 1 CPC. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. "
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.