State of Haryana & Ors. Vs. Mohinder Singh & Ors.
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 5841-5842 of 2000
Petitioner: State of Haryana & Ors.
Respondent: Mohinder Singh & Ors.
Apeal: Civil Appeal Nos. 5841-5842 of 2000
Judges: Doraiswamy Raju & Shivaraj V. Patil, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Nov 12, 2002
Head Note:
Civil Law
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Civil Procedure Code, 1908
Order 47, rule 1 – Review – Scope – Exercise of powers – when permissible – Writ petition disposed by High Court being infructuous, but giving some directions – Later review sought and allowed. Held that High Court clearly over stepped its jurisdiction which is not permissible in view of Parsion Devi v. Sumitra Devi’s case (JT 1997 (8) SC 480).
Held:
The scope available for a litigant invoking the powers of review is not one more chance for rehearing of the matter already finally disposed of. The division bench in the High Court, completely overstepped the limits of its review jurisdiction and on the face of it appears to have proceeded as though it is a rehearing of the whole petition which had been earlier finally disposed of. This has been held by this Court to be not permissible. (Para 6)
Cases Reffered:
1. Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitra Devi & Ors. (JT 1997 (8) SC 480) (Para 3)
JUDGEMENT:
Order
1. The above appeals have been filed against the common order dated 14.05.1999 passed by a division bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in a batch of review applications filed in CWP No. 16358 of 1997, whereunder the court ordered as follows:-
“Since there was some doubt in the minds of the respondents regarding the true import of the judgment in Chhotu Ram’s case (supra), against which SLP has been dismissed by the Apex Court, therefore, we have clarified now that each OTA would be entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 w.e.f. January 01, 1994 irrespective of whether he has completed ten years of service as such or not. Now the respondents would carry out the aforesaid directions subject to the arrears being calculated for a period of three years and two months as was indicated in our order dated May 14, 1998, which is under review.”
2. Earlier, the learned Judges by an order passed on 14.05.1998 had chosen to finally dispose of the writ petition on the ground that it stood rendered infructuous, except in respect of issuing some directions. It is unnecessary for us, having regard to the view we intend taking, in these appeals to dwell at length on the details of the case on merits.
3. Learned additional solicitor general appearing for the appellant-state strongly contended that the High Court could not have passed the order under challenge in the purported exercise of its powers of review and the order under challenge is liable to be set aside on this ground alone, dehors even the infirmities in the ultimate decision on merits. Reliance has been placed in support thereof on the decision reported in Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi & Ors.1 wherein it has been observed as follows:-
“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 fact of the record. An error which 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 the 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”.
10. Considered in the light of this settled position we find that Sharma, J. clearly overstepped the jurisdiction vested in the Court under order 47 rule 1 CPC. The observations of Sharma, J. that “accordingly, the order in question is reviewed and it is held that the decree in question was of composite nature wherein both mandatory and prohibitory injuctions were provided” and as such the case was covered by Article 182 and not Article 181 cannot be said to fall within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction.”
4. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents with equal force contended that the High Court purported to do substantial justice by allowing the claim in the review petition and the same would not call for any interference, particularly having regard to the fact that the High Court, according to the learned counsel, merely set right an otherwise serious anomaly, and that too keeping in view an earlier decision in almost a similar case, as against which an unsuccessful attempt to appeal before this Court, seems to have been also made.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing on either side. The division bench in the High Court, in our view, completely overstepped the limits of its review jurisdiction and on the face of it appears to have proceeded as though it is a rehearing of the whole petition which had been earlier finally disposed of. It has often been reiterated that the scope available for a litigant invoking the powers of review is not one more chance for rehearing of the matter already finally disposed of. The course adopted in this case by the High Court appears to be really what has been held by this Court to be not permissible. On this ground alone, without expressing any views on the merits of the claim, the order of the High Court dated 14.5.99 is set aside and the original order dated 14.5.1998 shall stand restored. While noticing some of the submissions made on merits by either side, we consider it appropriate to place on record that even the learned counsel for the appellant could not seriously dispute the position that the respondents would at any rate be entitled to be placed on the ‘first higher standard pay scale’ and that to this extent atleast, the respondents’ claim would deserve consideration. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.
*****************
1. The above appeals have been filed against the common order dated 14.05.1999 passed by a division bench of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana in a batch of review applications filed in CWP No. 16358 of 1997, whereunder the court ordered as follows:-
“Since there was some doubt in the minds of the respondents regarding the true import of the judgment in Chhotu Ram’s case (supra), against which SLP has been dismissed by the Apex Court, therefore, we have clarified now that each OTA would be entitled to the pay scale of Rs. 1200-2040 w.e.f. January 01, 1994 irrespective of whether he has completed ten years of service as such or not. Now the respondents would carry out the aforesaid directions subject to the arrears being calculated for a period of three years and two months as was indicated in our order dated May 14, 1998, which is under review.”
2. Earlier, the learned Judges by an order passed on 14.05.1998 had chosen to finally dispose of the writ petition on the ground that it stood rendered infructuous, except in respect of issuing some directions. It is unnecessary for us, having regard to the view we intend taking, in these appeals to dwell at length on the details of the case on merits.
3. Learned additional solicitor general appearing for the appellant-state strongly contended that the High Court could not have passed the order under challenge in the purported exercise of its powers of review and the order under challenge is liable to be set aside on this ground alone, dehors even the infirmities in the ultimate decision on merits. Reliance has been placed in support thereof on the decision reported in Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi & Ors.1 wherein it has been observed as follows:-
“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 fact of the record. An error which 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 the 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”.
10. Considered in the light of this settled position we find that Sharma, J. clearly overstepped the jurisdiction vested in the Court under order 47 rule 1 CPC. The observations of Sharma, J. that “accordingly, the order in question is reviewed and it is held that the decree in question was of composite nature wherein both mandatory and prohibitory injuctions were provided” and as such the case was covered by Article 182 and not Article 181 cannot be said to fall within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction.”
4. Mr. Raju Ramachandran, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents with equal force contended that the High Court purported to do substantial justice by allowing the claim in the review petition and the same would not call for any interference, particularly having regard to the fact that the High Court, according to the learned counsel, merely set right an otherwise serious anomaly, and that too keeping in view an earlier decision in almost a similar case, as against which an unsuccessful attempt to appeal before this Court, seems to have been also made.
5. We have carefully considered the submissions of learned counsel appearing on either side. The division bench in the High Court, in our view, completely overstepped the limits of its review jurisdiction and on the face of it appears to have proceeded as though it is a rehearing of the whole petition which had been earlier finally disposed of. It has often been reiterated that the scope available for a litigant invoking the powers of review is not one more chance for rehearing of the matter already finally disposed of. The course adopted in this case by the High Court appears to be really what has been held by this Court to be not permissible. On this ground alone, without expressing any views on the merits of the claim, the order of the High Court dated 14.5.99 is set aside and the original order dated 14.5.1998 shall stand restored. While noticing some of the submissions made on merits by either side, we consider it appropriate to place on record that even the learned counsel for the appellant could not seriously dispute the position that the respondents would at any rate be entitled to be placed on the ‘first higher standard pay scale’ and that to this extent atleast, the respondents’ claim would deserve consideration. The appeals are allowed in the above terms. No order as to costs.
*****************
