SATYENDRA KUMAR Vs. U P JAL NIGAM
LAWS(ALL)-2001-9-59
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD (AT: LUCKNOW)
Decided on September 17,2001

SATYENDRA KUMAR Appellant
VERSUS
U.P.JAL NIGAM Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Kamal Kishore, J. - (1.) This is an application for review of the Judgment dated 10.1.2000 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 275 of 1999.
(2.) I have heard parties' counsel.
(3.) Under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C., a judgment may be open to review if there is a mistake or error apparent on record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on face of record Justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. In exercise of jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1, C.P.C. it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be re-heard and corrected. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise" as has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in a ruling in Parsion Devi v. Sumitra Devi. 1997 SCC 715.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.