Application for review of judgment
Full Text
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review.
Explanation.—The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.
Plain English Summary
Defines the jurisdiction and grounds for review of a judgment or decree by the court that passed it: discovery of new material after due diligence, error apparent on the face of the record, or other analogous sufficient reason; the 1976 Explanation strictly bars review based on subsequent reversal of law by a higher court.
Key Legal Elements
- Three Classes of Aggrieved Persons: (a) Appealable decree/order where no appeal is preferred; (b) Non-appealable decree/order; (c) Small causes reference decision.
- Three Strict Statutory Grounds: (1) Discovery of new and important evidence after due diligence; (2) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (3) Any other sufficient reason (ejusdem generis).
- Sub-rule (2) Co-party Appeals: Non-appealing party may seek review during co-party's appeal unless the ground of appeal is common.
- 1976 Explanation Bar: Subsequent reversal or modification of a legal proposition by a superior court in another case is NOT a ground for review.
- Distinction from Appeal: Review is not a rehearing on merits or an appeal in disguise.
Practical Note
Landmark Jurisprudence on Order XLVII Rule 1: 1. Error Apparent on the Face of the Record: In Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. (AIR 1964 SC 1372), Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715, and Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Supreme Court ruled that a review petition cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. An 'error apparent on the face of the record' must be patent and self-evident without needing elaborate arguments or deep inquiry. Where two views are possible and the court adopted one, it cannot form the basis of a review. 2. 'Any Other Sufficient Reason' (The Ejusdem Generis Rule): In Chhajju Ram v. Neki (AIR 1922 PC 112) and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius (AIR 1954 SC 526), it was settled that 'any other sufficient reason' must be interpreted ejusdem generis with the first two grounds—meaning a reason at least analogous to discovery of new evidence or an error apparent. 3. The 1976 Explanation: In State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612, the Apex Court held that a subsequent change in law by a superior bench does not revive a finalized judgment under the guise of an error apparent.
हिंदी पाठ
(1) कोई भी व्यक्ति जो अपने को व्यथित समझता है—
(क) ऐसी किसी डिक्री या आदेश से जिससे अपील अनुज्ञात है, किंतु जिससे कोई अपील नहीं की गई है,
(ख) ऐसी किसी डिक्री या आदेश से जिससे कोई अपील अनुज्ञात नहीं है, अथवा
(ग) लघुवाद न्यायालय से किसी निर्देश पर दिए गए विनिश्चय से,
और जो किसी ऐसी नई और महत्वपूर्ण बात या साक्ष्य के प्रकटीकरण के कारण, जो सम्यक तत्परता (Due Diligence) बरतने पर भी उस समय उसकी जानकारी में नहीं था अथवा उसके द्वारा पेश नहीं किया जा सका जब डिक्री पारित की गई थी या आदेश किया गया था, अथवा अभिलेख के मुख पर प्रत्यक्ष किसी भूल या त्रुटि (Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record) के कारण अथवा किसी अन्य पर्याप्त हेतुक (Any other sufficient reason) से, अपने विरुद्ध पारित डिक्री या किए गए आदेश का पुनर्विलोकन (Review) प्राप्त करने की वांछा रखता है, उस न्यायालय को जिसने वह डिक्री पारित की थी या आदेश किया था, निर्णय के पुनर्विलोकन के लिए आवेदन कर सकेगा।
(2) कोई पक्षकार जो डिक्री या आदेश से अपील नहीं कर रहा है, किसी अन्य पक्षकार द्वारा अपील लंबित रहने के बावजूद निर्णय के पुनर्विलोकन के लिए आवेदन कर सकेगा, सिवाय वहां जहां ऐसी अपील का आधार आवेदक और अपीलार्थी के लिए सामान्य है, अथवा जब, प्रत्यर्थी होने के नाते, वह अपीलीय न्यायालय के समक्ष उस मामले को प्रस्तुत कर सकता है जिसके आधार पर उसने पुनर्विलोकन हेतु आवेदन किया था।
स्पष्टीकरण—यह तथ्य कि विधि के उस प्रश्न पर विनिश्चय जिस पर न्यायालय का निर्णय आधारित है, किसी अन्य मामले में किसी वरिष्ठ न्यायालय के पश्चातवर्ती विनिश्चय द्वारा उलट दिया गया है या परिवर्तित कर दिया गया है, ऐसे निर्णय के पुनर्विलोकन का आधार नहीं होगा।