Atul Kumar Jain, J. - (1.) IN all these five matters, an order was passed on 5.2.2015 in Civil Misc. Appeals pending before this Court, appellant has filed application for review of that order under Order 47 Rule 1 & 2 CPC read with Section 151 CPC. Hon'ble the Apex Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati & Anr. - : (2013) 1 TCR 402 (SC) has held that the following grounds for review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: - - "(A) When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the Petitioner or could not be produced by (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki, : air 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Ors., : (1955) 1 SCR 520, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. and Ors. 3 : : JT 2013 (8) SC 275. (B) When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
(2.) DIVISION Bench of Rajasthan High Court in Shri Brajraj Singh & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. - : (2012) 4 WLC (Raj.) 577 has also held that Order 47 Rule 1 CPC does not give power to the court to examine the matter afresh while deciding review petition. It was further held in this case that review can be entertained on grounds of error apparent on face of record but unless error is self evident, an erroneous decision cannot be reheard and corrected. In Parsion Devi & Ors v. Sumitri Devi & Ors. - : (1997) 8 SCC 715 it was held that an error, which is not self evident and has to be detected by process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise powers of review in exercise of review jurisdiction. It was further held in this case that there is clear distinction between erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of record. While first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of review jurisdiction.
(3.) IN the case in hand, learned counsel for the review petitioner/appellant has argued at length in support of his review petition and written submissions in fifteen pages have also been submitted by the appellant. It has been argued on behalf of the review petitioner that his following rulings were referred by this Court in its impugned judgment but the rulings have not been considered, discussed or properly appreciated; "(1) ONGC v. Modern Construction Company : (2014) 1 SCC 648; (2) Consolidated Engineering Enterprises v. Principal Secretary, Irrigation Department : (2008) 7 SCC 169 (3) Esha Bhattacharjee v. Managing Committee of Raghunathpur Nafar Academy & Ors. : (2013) 12 SCC 649";