Application where rejected / Application where granted
Full Text
(1) Where it appears to the Court that there is not sufficient ground for a review, it shall reject the application.
(2) Where the Court is of opinion that the application for review should be granted, it shall grant the same:
Provided that—
(a) no such application shall be granted without previous notice to the opposite party, to enable him to appear and be heard in support of the decree or order, a review of which is applied for; and
(b) no such application shall be granted on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence which the applicant alleges was not within his knowledge, or could not be adduced by him when the decree or order was passed or made, without strict proof of such allegation.
Plain English Summary
Regulates the two-stage adjudication of review applications: summary rejection if no sufficient ground appears, and mandatory previous notice to the opposite party plus strict proof of due diligence for new evidence before granting review.
Key Legal Elements
- Two-Stage Procedure: Stage 1: Threshold scrutiny (reject in limine or issue notice); Stage 2: Contested hearing on whether to grant review.
- Proviso (a) Mandatory Notice: Review can NEVER be granted ex parte; opposite party has an indefeasible right to be heard in support of the original decree.
- Proviso (b) Strict Proof: Discovery of new evidence requires strict proof of due diligence; casual affidavits are insufficient.
- Order Granting Appealable: An order granting review is appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(w) CPC.
Practical Note
Two-Stage Review Process & Strict Proof Requirement: 1. The Three Stages of Review: In Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (2006) 4 SCC 78, the Supreme Court explained that a review proceeding has three distinct stages: (i) Ex-parte threshold stage: where the court either rejects it summarily under Rule 4(1) or issues notice under Proviso (a); (ii) Hearing on the rule nisi: where both sides are heard on whether review should be granted under Rule 4(2); (iii) Re-hearing on merits under Rule 8: where, after granting review, the matter is re-heard on the point reviewed. 2. Strict Proof under Proviso (b): A litigant alleging discovery of new evidence must place unimpeachable documentary evidence and detailed chronological facts demonstrating why it could not have been discovered during the original trial despite highest diligence.
हिंदी पाठ
(1) जहां न्यायालय को यह प्रतीत होता है कि पुनर्विलोकन के लिए पर्याप्त आधार नहीं है, वहां वह आवेदन को नामंजूर कर देगा।
(2) जहां न्यायालय की यह राय है कि पुनर्विलोकन के आवेदन को मंजूर किया जाना चाहिए, वहां वह उसे मंजूर करेगा:
परंतु—
(क) विरोधी पक्षकार को पूर्व सूचना दिए बिना, जिससे वह उस डिक्री या आदेश के समर्थन में उपसंजात हो सके और सुना जा सके जिसके पुनर्विलोकन के लिए आवेदन किया गया है, ऐसा कोई आवेदन मंजूर नहीं किया जाएगा; तथा
(ख) किसी ऐसी नई बात या साक्ष्य के प्रकटीकरण के आधार पर, जिसके संबंध में आवेदक अभिकथित करता है कि वह उसकी जानकारी में नहीं था अथवा उसके द्वारा उस समय प्रस्तुत नहीं किया जा सका जब डिक्री या आदेश पारित किया गया था, ऐसा कोई आवेदन ऐसे अभिकथन के कठोर प्रमाण (Strict Proof) के बिना मंजूर नहीं किया जाएगा।