Birsa Agricultural University v. Dr. Ashish Kumar Chkraborty & Anr.

Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, has submitted that the appellant may or may not pursue this appeal at their own risk. In the result, this appeal is dismissed as withdrawn.” The principle of review of an order is already established as would appear from the judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. vrs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and ors., reported in A.I.R. 1954 SC 526 particularly at paragraph-32 which read as hereunder:- 3 “32. Before going into the merits of the case it is as well to bear in mind the scope of the application for review which has given rise to the present appeal. It is needless to emphasis that the scope of an application for review is much more restricted than that of an appeal. Under the provisions in the Travancore Code of Civil Procedure which is similar in terms to Order XL VII, Rule I of our Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the Court of review has only a limited jurisdiction circumscribed by the definitive limits fixed by the language used therein.

It may allow a review on three specified, grounds, namely (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed, (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and (iii) for any other sufficient reason.” In the case of Shivdev Singh Vrs. State of Punjab, reported in AIR 1963 SC 1909, in a review petition filed under Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C., the Supreme Court held that the power of review of its own order by the High Court inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction, to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. In doing so, the Court was only upholding the principles of natural justice. This decision indicates that the Court’s power of review while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution extends to correct all errors to prevent miscarriage of justice.

The judgment rendered by Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Sow. Chandra Kanta and Anr. Vrs. Sheik Habib, reported in AIR 1975 SC 1500 wherein it has been held that:-

A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. A mere repetition through different counsel of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered ground or import are obviously minor mistakes of insufficient.

inconsequential 4 It is evident from the aforesaid judgment that the review of an order can only be filed if the adjudication has been made regarding the claims on its merit. That too the review can only be considered on limited scope depending upon certain eventualities i.e. if the fact has not been brought to the notice of the Court in spite of due diligence or there is error apparent on the fact of record.

But herein since the appeal itself has been sought to be withdrawn and accordingly the appeal has been dismissed as withdrawn, hence, it is not a case where the power of review to be exercised. Accordingly, the instant Review Application is dismissed. P.K.S. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) (Subhash Chand, J.)