BILASPUR v. Company Liinited Branch Office, Through Divisional Manager, New

HON'BLE Mr. PRASHANT KUS1AR ?^ISHRA JJ

02.02.2012 Mr. C J.K. Rao, counsel Ar the petitioner. By fhis review petition, Ithe applicajit has prayed fhat fhe applicant who was the own.ei o| t' the vehicle be exonerated froaithe liabiUty aad the coinpensation) amount awarded to the claimaats be reduced bv reca11insr the ordl l]er dated 22.02.2011 passed by this Courtm M.A(C).No.923/2008. The roraver inade iii tlie |review petition aad fhe arguiiients advanced by leamed counsel b| :fore us appear to be nusconceived. The applicant has not poiated <|iut aav raaiufest error on the face of record and he has not brough^ to our notice aav new facts which could not be produced earlier. It is weU settled pnncipl^ .els of law fhat fhe review proceedings are not by way of an appeal p have to be stricfly confined to the scope aad arabit of Order 47 R| ule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It appears fhat the appUcant bj, filing fhis review petition. seeks sai opportunity to argue fhe entu)( case afresh on inerits under the iarb of the review petition, whit ;h is not permissible aud tenable ia ^iiu'fl-ii ^^ ^\vW, u^f^ir^—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. r" i£i;. 'ti'- I.. ^-F f/""^ \ 'S'ST "iii*ii<vf-4, »Til'M'i<a, fsf^raFy 3n^iTra?T ('j^ia't'i'T) 'ronwHftg aii^i -T- °ftf*<i<vr<ffi iTm?ft* ^ ^^ <P»I^I< ^sifiiHSll^T law.

It is also weU settled th^ lt under fae garb of review petittion, the appUcant should not be jpermitted to argae fhe entire case a&esh which would ainount t() convert the review petition iato an appeal aud the sam.e is not |ustaiuable in law, as laid down by Hon'ble tiie Apex Court Snvk. Meera Bhcm/eui Vs. SnvS. W.mudtt Kuniar Choiudhary^ AIR 1995 SC 45S; LUy Thorwas etc., Vs. Union. of IneSla em^ others AOR 2000 SC 1650: Aiit Kumar Retth Vs. Stttte af 0»1tssei and others AQ? 2000 SC 85; Govt. of T.N. aitd others V^. fe. SS. Ananchu Asari and others (2005) 2 SCC 332 cmd. Xe( rala Stcite BlectrictSy Board Vs. Sitech Electrothermlcsm. &[ HydropOtuer Ltd., (uid ftOOSj 6 SCC 6S1. Further Hon'ble fhe Aptx Court in State of West Bertfial <uuZ others Vs. Kamtil Sen^wptei and another (2008) 8 SCC 612 held ia para 22 that ini^ take or error apparent sigrufies aii error which is evideat per se Q'oin. the record of fhe case aiid does not reqiiire detailed examiaatidin, scrutinv and elucidation either of fhe facts or the legsd positioal If an error is not self-evident aiid detection thereof reqTyes lon^ debate and process ofreasoniag, it WU'f\V ildll iyi\v»,Uvl-IWH*—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000. + ^ -•..JS.SV^..:^ w^3y ^ ^ST '<11<<IC1*1, ®Tll<H'i<o, fs|(»II.H^< sn^ff T5R? (ljc)i^<^T) ?E%ff 3fl^?T »HI<ft ^?T^iN TOiiw^tean^r <8)l'i!td<?l-f •WWff •? ^S <fa^l< ^aifOT 311^1 caruiot be treated as an error aj)parent on fhe face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule l ICPC. Here ia the iastant case the order under review has been passed after issuing notice to t^ie parties and ia view of the above setfled position of law, no grcjund for leview is available to fhe applicant against the impugned| order. The review petitiou is Isdfhout any substance, the same deserves to be aad is heieby di; linissed. Sd/- DR. I-M.Quddusi Judge Sd/- r Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge j( Rao ^ii-y'fl-ii iS^l-y *^"u^i, <R^t<i<iN—FS/140—2/2011—1,50,000.