Orissa High Court
Case Details
Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.154 of 2023 Along with CONTC No.3374 of 2023 …. Petitioner(s) Shree Jagannath Mahaprabhu Bije, Puri (In RVWPET No.154 of 2023) M/S Odisha Trust of Technical Education and Training, Bhubaneswar (In CONTC No.3374 of 2023) -versus- …. Opposite Party (s) M/S Odisha Trust of Technical Education and Training, Bhubaneswar (In RVWPET No.154 of 2023) Ranjan Kumar Das, IAS (In CONTC No.3374 of 2023) Advocates appeared in the case through Hybrid Mode: For Petitioner(s) : For Opposite Party (s) : Mr.Pitambar Acharya, Senior Advocate along with Mr.A.C. Swain, Adv. (In RVWPET No.154 of 2023) Mr. Milan Kanungo, Sr. Adv. along with Mr. S. R. Mohanty, Adv. (IN CONTC No.3374 of 2023) Mr. Pitambar Acharya, Senior Advocate along with Mr.A.C. Swain, Adv. (IN CONTC No.3374 of 2023) Mr. Milan Kanungo, Adv. along with Mr. S. R. Mohanty, Adv. (In RVWPET No.154 of 2023) Page 1 of 53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 CORAM: DR. JUSTICE S.K. PANIGRAHI DATE OF HEARING:-22.04.2025 DATE OF JUDGMENT:-16.05.2025 Dr. S.K. Panigrahi, J. 1. Since both the cases are interlinked, both the cases are being heard and disposed of together. However, this court feels it appropriate to treat RVWPET No.154 of 2023 as the leading case for proper adjudication of these matters. 2. The Petitioner, in the instant Review Petition, seeks to assail the judgment rendered by this Court vide its order dated 27.03.2023 in W.P.(C) No. 8201 of 2022, whereby this Court was pleased to direct the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration, Puri, through its District Level Land Sub-Committee, to initiate steps for the sale of the land belonging to Lord Jagannath, as involved in the present matter. In compliance with the said order, the Sub-Committee was instructed to first obtain the Bench Mark Valuation for the year 2020-21 from the District Sub- Registrar, Khordha, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the order, and immediately thereafter to communicate the demand to the Petitioner for deposit of the differential amount. The Petitioner was directed to deposit such differential amount within a period of two weeks from the date of such communication. Upon receipt of the said amount, the Law Department was further directed to accord permission under Section 16(2) of the Shri Jagannath Temple Act, 1955 (hereinafter Page 2 of 53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 “SJTA”), whereupon the necessary land documents would be executed in favour of the Petitioner. 3. The present Contempt Petition stems from the non-compliance with the directions issued by this Court in its order dated 27.03.2023. The adjudication of the Contempt Petition is intrinsically linked to the outcome of the Review Petition, and its fate shall accordingly be determined upon the conclusion thereof. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the directions contained in the impugned judgment are manifestly contrary to the Uniform Policy formulated by the Temple Managing Committee in consultation with the State Government, governing alienation of temple land. The implementation of the aforesaid order would not only amount to a deviation from established policy but would also create an undesirable precedent. This would result in substantial and irreparable financial loss to the Deity, who is recognized in law as a perpetual minor, and whose interests must be safeguarded with utmost vigilance. I. RELEVANT FACTUAL MATRIX 5. The relevant facts of the case are as follows: a) The disputed land, forming part of the Ekarajat Mahal estate, has a unique and sacrosant origin. It was originally endowed by the British Government in 1858 and handed over to the then Raja Superintendent of the Shree Jagannath Temple for the specific purpose of meeting the temple’s expenses. Page 3 of 53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 b) On 14.11.1973, the then Administrator of the Shree Jagannath Temple is said to have issued a permanent lease (Kabuliyat) in favour of Smt. Rabibala Sinha in Lease Case No. 13/1971. However, this lease was granted without obtaining the necessary concurrence of the Temple Managing Committee or prior sanction of the State Government, as mandatorily required under Section 16(2) of the SJTA. Nevertheless, on 26.05.1981, Rabibala Sinha executed a registered sale deed in favour of Milan Kumar Sahoo and Srinath Sahoo. In May 1990, a mutation in their names was effected in Mutation Case No. 949/1989, allegedly without objection from the Temple Administration. c) Later, on 31.05.2000, Milan Kumar Sahoo and Srinath Sahoo executed a registered sale deed in favour of OTTET (Orissa Trust of Technical Education and Training), the Opposite Party No.1. Subsequently, OTTET filed Mutation Case No. 1703/2011 seeking correction of the Record-of-Rights in its name. d) However, during the pendency of these proceedings, the Shree Jagannath Temple Administration filed Mutation Appeal No. 120/2014 before the Sub-Collector, Bhubaneswar challenging the mutation effected in 1990. OTTET, in turn, challenged the maintainability of this delayed appeal by filing W.P.(C) No. 11871/2015. This Court disposed of the petition on 06.07.2015, directing the Tahasildar to dispose of Mutation Case No. 1703/2011 within three months. e) In the course of this proceeding, the Tahasildar directed OTTET to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Temple Page 4 of 53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 Administration. OTTET then approached this Court again by way of filing of W.P.(C) No. 596/2018, challenging the order dated 18.10.2017 passed in Mutation Appeal No. 120/2014. The Court, vide order dated 19.01.2018, stayed further proceedings in the said mutation appeal. While the matter was pending, the Temple Managing Committee, in its meeting dated 29.01.2019, resolved to grant NOC to OTTET subject to deposit of Rs.1,42,200/- per decimal, and also decided to withdraw Mutation Appeal No. 120/2014, provided OTTET withdrew its writ petition. Acting upon this, OTTET withdrew W.P.(C) No.596/2018. Thereafter, on 05.02.2020, the Sub-Collector allowed Mutation Appeal No. 120/2014 in favour of the Temple Administration. f) Meanwhile, the State Level Land Committee, in its meeting held on 20.02.2020, deliberated on the question of alienating the land in question. It was observed that the land comprising Ac.15.00, situated in Mouza-Kantia, was part of a larger contiguous stretch of land i.e. Plot Nos. 4059 and 4285, measuring Ac. 59.950 and Ac. 16.575 respectively. The Committee reasoned that the sale of such land at outdated benchmark value would cause a substantial financial loss to Lord Jagannath, a perpetual minor. Accordingly, it was decided to revert the proposal to sell the land to OTTET, instructing them to re-submit their application along with a recommendation from the District Level Land Sub-Committee and obtain the current market value from the Sub- Registrar. It was further clarified that this resolution would override all Page 5 of 53 Signature Not Verified
Legal Reasoning
Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 previous inconsistent communications, resolutions, and decisions by the Temple Administration, including those of the Managing Committee. g) Upon closer examination, the Temple Administration discovered that the resolution dated 03.12.2019 was passed in deviation from the binding Uniform Policy and without taking into account the void nature of the lease deeds. The said policy explicitly prohibits regularisation or sale of land covered by forged or void lease deeds. Accordingly, on 17.11.2020, the Managing Committee passed a fresh resolution reversing its earlier decision and resolving not to alienate the land. Instead, it was resolved to refund the amount deposited by the Opp. Party No.1 as consideration. h) Following this, a refund of Rs. 1.5 crores was initiated through UCO Bank Draft No. 532679 dated 25.03.2021 under SJTA Letter No. 3140 dated 26.03.2021, sent by special messenger on 08.04.2021. However, OTTET refused to accept the refund. Another cheque bearing No. 000942 dated 02.06.2021 for the same amount was then sent via registered post, which was also returned undelivered and received back by the SJTA on 02.07.2021. i) In rebuttal, the Opposite Parties preferred W.P.(C) No. 3865 of 2021, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus to the Temple Administration to execute a sale deed in their favour. In response, the Temple Administration filed a comprehensive counter-affidavit outlining the void nature of the lease deeds, the absence of statutory compliance under Section 16(2), and the fact that the earlier resolution Page 6 of 53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 had been legally and properly rescinded. It was further submitted that the Uniform Policy, which forms part of the legal framework governing alienation of temple land, expressly bars such transactions and requires recommendation from the District Level Land Sub-Committee, which was conspicuously absent in this case, making this case a fit case for review. j) The Temple Administration also placed on record the joint enquiry report, current benchmark valuation, multiple correspondences, and a detailed sequence of events showing due compliance with statutory and
Legal Reasoning
policy norms. However, the judgment dated 27.03.2023 is under review. This Court directed the Temple Administration to obtain the Benchmark Valuation for 2020–21, demand the differential amount from the Petitioners (Opp. party in this petition), and upon its receipt, process the file for permission under Section 16(2) of the Act and execute the sale deed. Hence, this Review Petition. II. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY THE PETITIONER: 6. Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner Mr. Pitambar Acharya earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i). The Single Judge, in issuing the impugned judgment, has clearly exceeded the limited scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which does not extend to the adjudication of disputed questions of fact or to grant relief to parties claiming under void, forged, or fraudulent documents. The order under review is vitiated by the suppression of material facts and documents by the writ Page 7 of 53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 petitioner, particularly the non-disclosure of pending applications dated 21.06.2008 and 21.01.2014 submitted by the Opposite Party under the Uniform Policy for the purchase of the land in question. These
Decision
applications remain undisposed of and constitute newly discovered and material evidence, which could not have been presented earlier despite due diligence. Such suppression on the part of the Opposite Party amounts to fraud on the Court, as recognized by the Supreme Court in S.P. Chengalvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath,1 thereby rendering the impugned order void and warranting its review. (ii). The land in question, being religious endowment property, falls within the purview of the SJTA. Section 16(2) of the Act categorically prohibits any lease, sale, or mortgage of temple property without prior sanction of the State Government; a condition never satisfied in this case. Consequently, all transactions, from the inception of the lease to subsequent transfers, including those involving OTTET and its assigns, are vitiated ab initio and are legally non-existent. The impugned judgment fails to consider the mandatory provisions of Sections 5, 16, and 33 of the Temple Act and disregards binding resolutions passed by statutory committees constituted under the Act. (iii). The Supreme Court, in Shree Jagannath Temple Managing Committee v. Siddha Math &Ors.,2 has upheld the overriding effect of Sections 5 and 33 and affirmed the statutory primacy of the Temple Committee in 1AIR 1994 SC 853 2[2015] 15 SCR 46 Page 8 of 53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 all matters concerning temple properties. The judgment under review, by overlooking these statutory mandates, is unsustainable in law. (iv). The original lease granted in Lease Case No. 13/1973 to Rabibala Sinha was issued without any approval from the Temple Managing Committee or the State Government and is therefore wholly illegal and void. All derivative or subsequent claims, including the alleged rights of OTTET from the year 2000, rest on this patchy foundation. The doctrine of nemodat quod non habet squarely applies, and no valid title can be conveyed when none existed in the first place. The assertion of any vested right by the Opposite Parties on the basis of the alleged deposit of Rs. 1.5 Crores is wholly misconceived. The said amount was not accepted as consideration for a concluded transaction but held in deposit, pending due diligence and fulfillment of mandatory statutory requirements. The State Level Land Committee, by resolution dated 20.02.2020, rejected OTTET’s application for sale due to the absence of recommendation from the District Level Land Sub-Committee and the potential loss to the deity because of undervaluation. Subsequently, the Temple Administration resolved on 17.11.2020 to refund the amount and not to proceed with the sale. Despite repeated communications, the Opposite Parties failed to accept the refund, revealing their mala fide intent to enforce a transaction contrary to law. (v). The Opposite Parties have further misled this Court by misrepresenting facts related to Mutation Appeal No. 120/2014. The withdrawal of W.P.(C) No. 596 of 2018 was not based on any commitment or undertaking by the Temple Administration to issue a No Objection Page 9 of 53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 Certificate (NOC), and no such assurance was given. The plea of legitimate expectation is therefore baseless and contrary to the record. The Opposite Parties have also attempted to misuse documents in OEA Case No. 88/1992 by falsely asserting that 4 acres of land under Khata No. 4059 had been restored to private persons by Memo No. 1211/IR dated 21.03.1998. The Board of Revenue’s order contains no such direction, and this misrepresentation constitutes a fraudulent attempt to obtain favourable relief. Following the Temple Committee’s resolution dated 17.11.2020, Misc. Case No. 14 of 2021, arising from W.P.(C) No. 3865/2021, was filed, wherein the request for NOC was lawfully and rightly rejected, particularly since the land is recorded in the name of Lord Jagannath in both the Sabik and Hal Records of Rights. The direction of the Single Judge to execute the sale deed in favour of the Petitioners directly violates this statutory protection. Hence, the thwarted aspiration of the Petitioner in the guise of legitimate expectations snow ball a legal folly. (vi). Though there existed a prior resolution dated 21.05.2019 suggesting the issuance of NOC based on 2000 valuation rates, subsequent developments rendered it redundant. Market value had by then escalated to over Rs. 2 Crore per acre, and the Uniform Policy mandates sale at prevailing market rates to protect the interests of the deity. No NOC was ever issued pursuant to the 2019 resolution, and in view of the adverse decision of the State Level Land Committee and the Opposite Parties’ failure to obtain necessary recommendations, no enforceable rights accrued. Moreover, Clause 7(d) of the Uniform Policy Page 10 of 53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 limits the validity of a valuation to three years. The Court’s direction to execute a sale deed based on the outdated 2020-21 valuation violates this provision and contravenes the policy framework governing alienation of temple lands. It also interferes with the fiduciary and discretionary domain of the Temple Managing Committee, whose autonomy and custodial authority are protected under the Act and affirmed by precedents. (vii). The Opposite Parties have also failed to substantiate their claim of having invested in the land or of having come into possession lawfully. Their assertion remains unproven and is contradicted by their repeated attempts to obtain favourable relief through multiple writ petitions and by circumventing due process. These actions reflect an abuse of the Court’s process and disqualify the Opposite Parties as bona fide litigants. The direction of the Single Judge to execute a sale deed in their favour, without addressing the legality of the original lease and despite the lack of jurisdiction under Article 226, mandates urgent review. The entire foundation of the Opposite Parties’ claim is based on illegality and fraud, which this Court, exercising its equitable jurisdiction, must not endorse. (viii). Finally, as per the Uniform Policy and prevailing statutory norms, all vacant lands under Kantia Mouza in the Sateishi Hazari Mahal category must be disposed of through public auction. The impugned order’s direction to allow a private sale to the Opposite Parties has no basis in law or policy and stands contrary to the statutory framework and the interests of the deity. The same is therefore liable to be set aside. Page 11 of 53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 III. SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED BY THE OPPOSITE PARTIES 7. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel for the Opp. Party Mr. Milan Kanungo earnestly made the following submissions in support of his contentions: (i). The Review Petition is devoid of merit as there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 27.03.2023 passed in W.P.(C) No. 8201 of 2022. This Court has already adjudicated the matter after full consideration of the pleadings and contentions of both sides, including those raised by the Review Petitioners. (ii). As held by the Supreme Court in Shri Ram Sahu v. Vinod Kumar Rawat,3 the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to discovery of new evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason. The error must be self-evident and not one requiring elaborate argument. A review cannot serve as an appeal in disguise. The Review Petitioners have failed to demonstrate any such error. (iii). The petition does not satisfy the limited grounds for review. The facts and findings recorded in the judgment reflect no error justifying interference. The contentions regarding OTTET’s applications in 2008, 2011, and 2014, and the Land Committee proceedings dated 20.02.2020, are duly addressed. The land was leased to Smt. Rabibala Sinha in 1973 with prior government sanction (ALR Case No. 13/73). She sold the land to Milan and Srinath Sahoo via registered deed No. 1010/1981. Based on 3 Civil Appeal No. 3601 of 2020 Page 12 of 53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 this, Mutation Case No. 949/89 was initiated and allowed, with the Temple’s representative affirming the lease’s validity. (iv). The land was later sold to OTTET via deed No. 3017/2000. Meanwhile, the Temple filed OEA Case No. 88/92, disposed of by the Board of Revenue on 27.02.1998, restoring certain lands to the Temple, excluding the subject lands which remained in Milan Sahoo’s name. (v). In 2008, the Government declined to accept land revenue from OTTET, requiring an NOC from the Temple. Though OTTET paid Rs.10 and applied for NOC, no action followed. In 2011, OTTET filed Mutation Case No. 1703/11. After 41 years of lease and 25 years post-mutation, the Temple belatedly filed Mutation Appeal No. 120/2014, leading OTTET to approach this Court in W.P.(C) No. 11871/2015, seeking early disposal. (vi). Upon condonation of the Temple’s delay, OTTET challenged the same in W.P.(C) No. 596/2018. This Court stayed further proceedings. On 29.01.2019 and 15.03.2019, the Managing Committee resolved to withdraw the appeal and issue NOC upon payment of year 2000 benchmark value. A spot inspection confirmed valuation at Rs.10 lakhs per acre. OTTET deposited Rs.1.5 crores for 15 acres. (vii). On 20.06.2019, OTTET was directed to deposit the amount and withdraw the writ petition. Upon compliance, the Temple sought government approval under Section 16 of the SJTA Act, which was conditionally granted on 08.06.2020. The Revenue Department’s 2008 clarification supports the continuity of private rights over recorded Sthitiban lands. Page 13 of 53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 (viii). The Temple initially decided to withdraw the mutation appeal, prompting OTTET to not appear. Later, it reversed its stand, compelling OTTET to file W.P.(C) No. 8201/2022. As recorded in the judgment, the petitioner deposited Rs.1.5 crores, and the Temple Administration pursued government approval. These facts, already considered, do not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record to warrant review. IV. AN EXAMINATION OF THE REVIEW JURISDICTION OF THE HIGH COURT 8. Before addressing the arguments advanced by the learned counsel on either side, it is necessary to revisit the settled legal position regarding the scope of review as envisaged under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, read in conjunction with, Order XLVII Rule 1. 9. The authority of the Supreme Court to revisit and reconsider its own judgments is grounded in Article 137 of the Constitution of India. In civil cases, the criteria for seeking review are drawn from Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which stipulates specific grounds for such relief. In contrast, in criminal proceedings, review is available only where a manifest error is evident on the face of the record. 10. The Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (1),4 elucidated the fundamental principles governing the exercise of review jurisdiction, outlining both the conditions warranting and those precluding such exercise. In this regard, the Court relied on the observations of Justice Krishna Iyer, who emphasized that a request for 42023 SCC OnLine SC 140 Page 14 of 53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 review, absent a manifest error in the original decision, is tantamount to seeking the impossible: “In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as His Lordship then was) “a plea of review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result……… A review in the Counsel’s mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace.” 11. It is also well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by the High Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. 12. In Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others,5 the Supreme Court made very succinct observations. A review is permissible only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, or discovery of new and important evidence. The relevant paragraph is produced hereinbelow: “9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be 2 (1980) 2 SCC 167, M/s. Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. vs. Lt. Governor of Delhi 3 AIR 1965 SC 845, Sajjan Singh and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. 4 (1997) 8 SCC 715 said to be an error apparent on the face of the 5(1997) 8 SCC 715 Page 15 of 53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” 13. In Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales Service Limited & Another,6 the Apex Court reiterated the law and held that: - “15. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.” 14. In the case of Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra,7 the Supreme Court has observed that, while exercising review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC, the court does not function as an appellate forum to re-examine its own order. It is well- established that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law, and review proceedings cannot be used as a disguised appeal. The power of review is confined to rectifying errors apparent on the face of the record and does not extend to substituting one judicial view for another. Such power must be exercised strictly within the statutory limits prescribed for review. It is impermissible and unjustified to attempt to rewrite or reframe a judgment that has conclusively decided the controversy. After 62023 INSC 610 7(2019) 20 SCC 753 Page 16 of 53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 a thorough examination of judicial precedents and principles governing review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, this Court has summarized the legal position as follows:: “(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long›drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” 15. Nonetheless, in the case of Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab,8 wherein the Supreme Court took the view that there is nothing under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which precludes High Court from exercising the power of review, which inheres in every Court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. It was held that every Court including High Court inheres plenary jurisdiction, to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. 8AIR 1963 SC 1909 Page 17 of 53 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed Signed by: BHABAGRAHI JHANKAR Reason: Authentication Location: ORISSA HIGH COURT, CUTTACK Date: 17-May-2025 18:34:56 16. In similar vein, in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale,9 the Supreme Court made the following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record :- “An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior Court to issue such a writ.” 17. In Smt. Meera Bhanja v. St. Nirmala Kumari Choudhary,10 the Supreme Court once again held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The relevant portion is produced hereinbelow: “12. In our view the aforesaid approach of the Division Bench dealing with the review proceedings clearly shows that it has over-stepped its jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. by merely styling the reasoning adopted by the earlier Division Bench as suffering from a patent error. It would not become a patent error or error apparent in view of the settled legal position indicated by us earlier. In substance, the review Bench has re-appreciated the entire evidence, sat almost as Court of appeal and has reversed the findings reached by the earlier Division Bench. Even if the earlier Division Bench findings regarding C.S. Plot No. 74