Order XLVII Rule 1 | 'Error Can Be Corrected Without Clamour, Correction Would Not Alter Decree': Calcutta HC Explains Requirements For Review

The Calcutta High Court on Monday had the opportunity to expound on the requirements that need to be fulfilled before a Court can revisit a judgment under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 

Under Order XLVII Rule 1, an aggrieved person may apply for review of a judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order under two conditions- first, upon discovery of new and important matter or evidence which could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, despite due diligence or because the new matter was not within his knowledge at the relevant point of time. Second, the judgment must reflect a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The provision also makes room for applying for review for any other sufficient reason.

Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya was adjudicating upon an application preferred by the judgment debtor Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited against the order passed by the Court on September 1, 2021. The impugned judgment had been passed in an application under Section 36 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 seeking a stay on the award passed by the West Bengal State Micro Small Enterprises Facilitation Council on September 24, 2019.

Arguing that the impugned judgment contains an error apparent on the face of the record, it was contended that the impugned judgment was adjudicated on the total amount payable by the applicant to the respondent together with the quantum of interest without taking into account the alleged lack of clarity in the award passed by the Facilitation Council.

Observations 

The Court at the outset observed that 'an error apparent on the face of the record' is an error which would be self- evident and obvious even at first glance. It was further enumerated that Order XLVII does not permit reappraisal of the merits of the matter and thus determination of such an error should not involve a long-drawn process of reasoning on points requiring a contested hearing. 

"An error apparent on the face of the record is hence a mistake which stares back at the Court and directs the attention of the Court to the mistake for taking brisk steps for correction", the Court averred further. 

It was further observed that the language used in Order XLVII is in itself an indicator that limits have been imposed upon the Court in order to discourage a re-appraisal by the same Court unless the conditions of sub-Rule-(1) of Rule 1 of Order XLVII are fulfilled.

Opining further that the legislative intent was to ensure that the process of review is quick and decisive, the Court further underscored, 

"The legislative intent is that the Court which passed the decree would allow an application for review if an apparent error, left uncorrected, would amount to an erroneous decision. The conditions built-in in Order XLVII for a reviewing Court to step in makes it clear that the process of review must be decisive, quick and without an exhaustive factual re-appreciation. An arduous re-look at the Judgment is saved for a higher forum under Orders XLI, XLII and XLIII of The Code of Civil Procedure."

The Court further opined that a mistake which requires the Court to scrutinise a decree in depth would call for a different procedure of challenge to the decree by way of an appeal. The three clauses of sub-rule (1) of Rule 1 of Order, the Court stated further:

"The sub-text of Order XLVII Rule 1(1) is that the error can be corrected without clamour; the parties being on the same page that the correction of the error would not alter the decree, subject to the importance and the new-ness of the evidence which is subsequently discovered", the Court averred further. 

Thus, the Court ruled that in the instant case, the so called 'error' is not one which is immediately apparent to the Court but goes to the root of the controversy which would require the Court to re-hear the parties on the issues in the application for stay of the Award passed by the Facilitation Council.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the application for review of the impugned judgment. 

Case Title: Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited v. Optimal Power Synergy 

Case Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Cal) 55

Click Here To Read/Download Order