Devi Prasad Singh, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition for review of judgment and order dated 22nd December, 2004 passed in Writ Petition No. 135 (RC) of 2004. The sole ground raised by the petitioner's Counsel is that while dismissing the writ petition this Court had incorrectly interpreted the law laid down by Apex Court in a case in Rakesh Kumar Wadhawan and others v. Jagdamba Industrial Corporation and others, 2002 (48) AIR 60. According to petitioner's Counsel in view of provision contained in section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act and law laid down by the Apex Court (particularly under Para 20 of the Rakesh Wadhawan's case), the rent deposited by the petitioner on the first date of hearing or before that shall not create a ground for interference with the petitioner's tenancy over the shop in question. On the other hand, respondent's Counsel had proceeded to submit that the power of review under section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure has got limited scope and only error apparent at the face of record may be looked into. According to respondents Counsel since the solitary ground raised by the petitioner's Counsel to exercise power to review relates to correctness or interpretation of Apex Court judgment in Rakesh Wadhawan's case (supra) which has already been considered by this Court while dismissing the writ petition by impugned order dated 22nd December, 2004, it is not open for interference in view of section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Respondent's Counsel had further submitted that the original agreement was not filed in the Court below and no application for extension of time was filed, hence, the agreement which was not filed in the Subordinate Court cannot be taken into account to extend benefit of section 114 of the Transfer of Property Act. Respondent's Counsel further prayer that he may be permitted to file an affidavit to place certain material on record keeping in view the argument advanced by the petitioner's Counsel.
(2.) I have given my anxious consideration to the argument advanced by the parties Counsel. A perusal of the impugned judgment shows that ground raised by the petitioner's Counsel relating to the Apex Court judgment was considered while dismissing the writ petition. Now whether the petitioner's Counsel may be permitted to argue the case afresh on merit while approaching this Court under section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure? Whether the Apex Court judgment can again be reconsidered and interpreted in different manner then what was done at the time of original hearing? Whether the parties may be permitted to advance arguments denovo on merit more so when the writ petition was dismissed at admission stage in limine without exchange of affidavits? Hon'ble Supreme Court in a case in M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi : AIR 1980 SC 674, had held that a party had no right to seek the review of a judgment by rehearing on merit for afresh decision in a matter. It has been also held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of a case. For convenience 'Para 8' of the Northern India Caterers (supra) is reproduced as under: - - It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan : (1965) 1 SCR 933 at p. 948. For instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original hearing the Court will revise its judgment, G.L. Gupta v. D.N. Mehta : (1971) 3 SCR 748 at p. 760. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. O.N. Mohindroo v. District Judge, Delhi : (1971) 2 SCR 11 at p. 27. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Article 145. I in a civil proceedings, an application for review is entertained only on a ground mentioned in Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in a criminal proceedings on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Order XL, Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib : (1975) 3 SCR 935.
(3.) IN one another case in Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others : (1997) 8 SCC 715, Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that while exercising power under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is not permissible for erroneous decision to be re -heard and corrected and the power of review cannot be exercised to be "an appeal in disguise". For convenience Paras 7 and 9 of the Parsion Devi's case (supra) are reproduced as under: - - 7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. In Thubngabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of A.P., SCR at p. 186, this Court opined: - - what, however, we are not concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'. The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for there is a distinctive which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by "error apparent". A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. 9. Under Order 47, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure 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 title face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered as a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".;