Court Can Invoke Power Of Review To Correct Inadvertent Errors, Misrepresentation Even After Judgement Is Pronounced: J&K High Court

Justice Javed Iqbal Wani, while hearing a review petition, stated, “The normal rule of law is that once a judgment is pronounced or an order is made, the Court becomes functus officio, i.e., ceases to have control over the matter and the judgment or order pronounced and made becomes final and cannot be altered, modified, varied or changed."

However, he added that the review of a judgment or order is an exception to this general rule and can be invoked and allowed in certain circumstances and on specific grounds.

The case involved a dispute over the partition of ancestral property. The review petition was filed to correct an alleged error in a previous judgment, where the petitioners claimed that the original suit involved misrepresentation and failure to include all necessary parties.

Justice Wani highlighted that the doctrine of review in law is both substantive and procedural. Courts are empowered to correct inadvertent or unintentional errors in judgments or orders due to procedural defects, mathematical and clerical errors, or misrepresentation and fraud by a party.

However, the court underscored that the power of review is not an inherent authority of the court and must be explicitly granted by statute or necessary implication. He noted that while courts can correct inadvertent errors, this power must be expressly conferred upon them.

"The power of review vested in a Court is not inherent power and has to be conferred on a Court either expressly or by necessary implication," Justice Wani remarked, emphasizing that such powers are circumscribed by legal provisions to prevent misuse and ensure judicial consistency.

The court in its judgment cited Inderchand Jain vs. Motilal (2009) to clarify the substantive power of review under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure explaining that while Section 114 grants courts the power to review their judgments or orders, the specific conditions for exercising this power are outlined in Order 47 of the Code.

These conditions include the discovery of new and important evidence, errors apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reasons.

The judgment also cited Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) through LRs and others v. Vinod Kumar Rawar, 2020 Online SC 896, which clarified the concept of "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record." This case explained that an error must be self-evident and not require detailed examination or long debate to be considered for review.

The Supreme Court in this judgement had emphasized that a review should not serve as an appeal in disguise and should be limited to correcting obvious and clear errors.

The court, after examining the case, found that the claim of the respondent involved a misrepresentation under which the review petitioners had not been impleaded as parties in the original suit, and their interests had been overlooked.

The court thus allowed the review petition, setting aside the order under review and restoring the petitioner's appeal for reconsideration.

Case Title: Mehrajud Din Ganie and others Vs Mst. Mymoona and others

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 207

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment