Errors Which Are Not Self-Evident, Have To Be Detected Cannot Justify Invoking Power Of Review Under O.47 R.1 CPC: J&K High Court
LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK
28 Nov 2024 5:25 PM IST
Defining the boundaries of judicial review the Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has emphasised that errors not evident on the face of the record cannot justify review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).
A bench of Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul held,
“An error that is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.”
Background:
The case revolved around a tenancy dispute between Kewal Krishan and Sham Lal. Sham Lal, the plaintiff, filed a suit for eviction and recovery of rent, claiming that Krishan had been a tenant since January 1, 2010. In response, Krishan denied the tenancy relationship, producing a 2009 demand draft of ₹8 lakh as proof of a property purchase. Sham Lal countered this by seeking permission to file a replica under Order VIII Rule 9 CPC, arguing that the draft represented arrears of rent.
The trial court, on August 6, 2022, allowed Sham Lal to file the replica.
Kewal Krishan challenged this order before the High Court, contending that the replica introduced a new case contrary to the original plaint and prejudiced his defense. The High Court dismissed the challenge on December 16, 2023, prompting Krishan to file the present review petition, claiming that the dismissal contained errors apparent on the face of the record.
Petitioner Kewal Krishan argued that allowing the replica contravened established legal principles and altered the original case, causing a miscarriage of justice. He contended that the trial court's order overlooked critical aspects and warranted review under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Respondent Sham Lal maintained that the replica was necessary to clarify new facts raised by Krishan. He argued that the trial court acted within its discretion to ensure procedural fairness and justice.
Court Observations:
Justice Koul meticulously examined the scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. He cited the Supreme Court's ruling in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000), emphasizing that the power of review is intended to correct mistakes, not substitute views. The Court observed,
“An error that is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.”
Justice Koul also highlighted the limitations imposed by Section 114 CPC, stating that:
“The words 'subject as aforesaid' occurring in Section 114 of the Code mean subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed as appearing in Section 113 thereof, and for the said purpose, the procedural conditions contained in Order XLVII of the Code must be taken into consideration.”
The Court further clarified that the review power should not be confused with appellate jurisdiction. Citing Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (2006), the Court noted that errors requiring extensive reasoning cannot be treated as apparent errors.
In dismissing the review petition, Justice Koul held that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record. “A review petition... cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise,'” the Court observed, quoting Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (1979) and Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra (2019).
The Court thus concluded that the trial court's order was legally sound, aimed at minimizing litigation, and did not warrant interference under Article 227.
Case Title: Kewal Krishan Vs Sham Lal
Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (JKL) 319
