Aparesh Kumar Singh, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) BY a detailed judgment dated 08.08.2013, the writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3234 of 2012 was allowed. The respondent/review petitioner herein have sought review of the aforesaid judgment on the ground that the petitioners' claim for seeking employment as a land looser was based upon assertion that two acres of land in total were taken away by the respondent -company of which 1.99 and 1/2 decimal belonged to the writ petitioners and .05 decimal belong to Ram Nandan Sao son of Mageshwar Sao. It is now pleaded on the basis of a document which incidentally has not been brought in the instant review petition though shown as Annexure -12 to the review petition that .05 decimal of land belonging to said Ram Nandan Sao son of Nageshwar Sao was utilized for providing employment to Dhirendra Prasad. The writ petitioner, therefore, could not have bunched the said piece of land to make it 2 acres of land for providing employment. On being asked, learned counsel for the review petitioner has submitted that the said document is of the date which ranges from 20.02.1993 to 04.04.1997. The said document is not brought on record though it has been shown to be annexed in the Civil Review Petition. The review petitioner on the said ground submitted that the claim of the writ petitioners of having surrendered physical possession of 2 acres of land for claiming employment is not correct and the judgment passed on that basis suffers from error on record.
(3.) HAVING heard learned counsel for the parties, in first place it is to be observed that the judgment dated 08.08.2013 passed in W.P. (S) No. 3234 of 2012 of which review is being sought was the 3rd round of litigation between the writ petitioners and the respondent -CCL. The earlier writ petitions being W.P. (S) No. 4687 of 2001 and W.P. (S) No. 4386 of 2008 was on the same issue. The direction passed in the earlier cases were also taken into account while deciding the present writ petition being W.P. (S) No. 3234 of 2012. It is not in dispute that document which is now sought to be relied upon by the review petitioner were not part of the record of the writ petition, though the respondent -Coal Company got sufficient opportunity to traverse the averments made in the pleading of the writ petition where such a claim was made. However, it is also evident that document which is now being sought to be relied upon was well within the possession of the respondent -CCL when the earlier writ petitions were decided including the judgment impugned herein. It, therefore, can be concluded that the document which is now being sought to be relied to impugn the judgment cannot be said to be one which was not within their knowledge or could not be found or produced before the Court earlier even after exercise of due diligence by the respondents/review petitioner. The judgment in question was decided on the basis of the pleading and the materials on records and being tested on ground of review, it definitely cannot be said to be suffering from any errors apparent on the face of record. The ground on which review of judgment can be sought for are well settled and are also contained in the provisions under order XLVII Rule 1 and of the C.P.C. which in principle are also followed in a proceeding under the writ jurisdiction. Order XLVII Rule 1 and 2 which laid down the parameters under which a judgment can be reviewed are being quoted herein: - "1. Application for review of judgment. -(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved - (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.";