Case Note & Summary
The case pertains to a review petition filed by M/s National Textile Corporation Ltd. and another (the original respondents) seeking review of a judgment dated 18th December 2017 passed by the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.605 of 2006. The appeal arose from a Writ Petition No.637 of 2004 concerning land acquisition compensation under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The original claimants (respondents in the review petition) had sought enhancement of compensation for their acquired land. The High Court, in its judgment dated 18th December 2017, had allowed the appeal and enhanced the compensation. The review petitioners contended that the judgment suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record, including misinterpretation of evidence and failure to consider certain documents. The respondents opposed the review, arguing that the petition merely sought a rehearing on merits. The court, after hearing both sides, examined the scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise and is confined to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, such as a mistake of law or fact that is evident without elaborate argument. The court found that the review petitioners had not pointed out any such error; instead, they sought to re-agitate the same issues already decided. Consequently, the court dismissed the review petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on the Face of the Record - Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The review petition sought to re-agitate the merits of the case, but the court held that review is not an appeal in disguise and is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. The court found no such error and dismissed the petition. (Paras 1-24) B) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Enhancement - Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - The original claimants sought enhancement of compensation for acquired land. The Reference Court and the High Court in appeal had already determined the compensation. The review petition did not point out any mistake in the earlier judgment. (Paras 1-24)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petition discloses any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment dated 18th December 2017 in Appeal No.605 of 2006.
Final Decision
The review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Error apparent on the face of the record
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
- Land Acquisition Act
- 1894
- Section 18
- Reference Court
- Enhancement of compensation
