Anil Kumar, J. - (1.) Heard Mohammad Tauseef Siddiqui, learned counsel for review petitioners, Sri R. N. Tilhari, learned counsel for respondents and perused the record. By means of the present review petition, the petitioner has sought of review of judgement and order dated 04.12.2013 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 111 (Cons.) of 1977.
(2.) I have heard learned counsel for parties and gone through the record. It is true that there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution of India to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it but it is also equally true that there are limits to the exercise of such power of review. Such power may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the persons seeking review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made, which is not the case here; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" means "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those referred herein above. (AIR 1954 SC 526; Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors.) .
(3.) As far as the term 'error or mistake apparent on the face of the record' is concerned, by its very connotation it signifies an error which is evident per-se from the records of the case and does not require any detailed examination, scrutiny and illustration either on facts or legal position. If an error is not evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning it can not be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C. or review proceeding based on the principals contained therein. An order or decision merely because it is erroneous can not be reviewed on the ground that a different view could have been taken on a point of fact or law, as, the Court would not sit in appeal over its judgment. The decision being erroneous in law, is no ground for ordering review, unless of course the error in law is so palpable that there could be no other view in the sense that the matter had already been set at rest by any previous judgment of the Court or a higher Court from which there was no escape. Reference may be made in this regard to the Judgment of the Supreme Court dated 13.12.2012 rendered in Review Petition (C) No. 272 of 2007 arising out of Writ Petition (C) No. 633 of 2005.;