- (1.) HEARD Shri Jai Prakash Yadav, learned counsel for the review petitioner, learned counsel for the respondent and perused the record.
(2.) PRESENT review petition has been filed by the petitioner for review of the judgment and order dated 18.4.2012 passed in Writ Petition No. 9222 (SS) of 2006 (Anil Kumar Mishra (Second) vs. Chairman, U.P. State Road Transport Corporation & 4 Ors.). I have heard learned counsel for the for the review petitioner, Shri Jai Prakash Yadav and gone through the records. Before adjudicating the matter on merit I feel appropriate to summarize the ambit and scope of the review on which a review petition can be made. In M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. Vs. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur, AIR 1964 SC 1372, the Apex Court held that 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.
(3.) HON'ble the Apex Court in Subhash Vs. State of Maharastra & Another, AIR 2002 SC 2537, the Apex Court emphasised that Court should not be misguided and should not lightly entertain the review application unless there are circumstances falling within the prescribed limits for that as the Courts and Tribunal should not proceed to re-examine the matter as if it was an original application before it for the reason that it cannot be a scope of review. This Court in the case of Bhagwant Singh Vs. Deputy Director of Consolidation & Another, AIR 1977 All. 163, rejected the review application filed on a ground which had not been argued earlier because the counsel, at initial stage, had committed mistake in not relying on and arguing those points, held as under:- "It is not possible to review a judgment only to give the petitioner a fresh inning. It is not for the litigant to judge of counsel's wisdom after the case has been decided. It is for the counsel to argue the case in the manner he thinks it should be argued. Once the case has been finally argued on merit and decided on merit, no application for review lies on the ground that the case should have been differently argued." ;