Case Note & Summary
The applicants, who were the original respondents in the main petition, filed a review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of a judgment dated 24.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Bombay at Goa. In that judgment, the High Court had allowed the petition filed by the respondent (original petitioner) and quashed an order of the First Appellate Court that had failed to assign sufficient reasons, directing the First Appellate Court to expedite the hearing. The applicants contended that the judgment under review left them in a fait accompli situation, as they would not get an opportunity to argue the stay application afresh before the District Court, unlike if the matter had been remanded for a fresh hearing. They also argued that the Court had relied on the case of Bhagwan s/o. Ganpatrao Ghodsay vs. Kachrulal s/o. Bastimal Samdariya [1987(2) Bom. C.R. 153] to a limited extent without considering the full import of that decision, which constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. The respondent opposed the review, arguing that the judgment was correct and that review was not maintainable. The Court, after hearing both sides, held that the review application was devoid of merit. It observed that the judgment under review did not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record. The Court emphasized that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-argue the case or to obtain a different decision. The applicants' grievance about being left in a fait accompli situation did not amount to an error apparent on the record. Accordingly, the review application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, 1908 - The applicants sought review of a judgment that quashed an unreasoned order of the First Appellate Court and directed expedited hearing. The Court held that the review was not maintainable as the judgment did not contain any error apparent on the face of the record; the applicants' grievance that they were left in a fait accompli situation did not amount to such an error. (Paras 1-3)
B) Civil Procedure - Review - Scope - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, 1908 - The Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-argue the case or to obtain a different decision on the same facts. The power of review is limited to correcting errors that are manifest on the face of the record. (Para 3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment dated 24.08.2018 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The review application is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record
- not re-appreciation of evidence or re-argument of the case
- Review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise
- Fait accompli situation does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record
Case Details
2018 LawText (BOM) (12) 179
CIVIL APPLICATION (REVIEW) NO.31 OF 2018
Shri Sagar Dhargalkar for the Appellants, Shri Myron Menezes D'Souza for the Respondents
Mrs. Linda D'Souza e Fernandes, Mr. Tony Fernandes, Mrs. Mary Viegas Souza
Mr. Luis Antonio Romualdo Jesus de Maria Jose De Abreu (since deceased through legal heirs Ms. Maria Do Ceu Abreu)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review application under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of a judgment dated 24.08.2018 passed by the High Court in a civil petition.
Remedy Sought
The applicants sought review of the judgment dated 24.08.2018 and remand of the matter to the District Court for a fresh hearing on the stay application.
Filing Reason
The applicants contended that the judgment under review left them in a fait accompli situation and that the Court had relied on a precedent to a limited extent without considering its full import, constituting an error apparent on the face of the record.
Previous Decisions
The High Court had earlier allowed the petition and quashed an unreasoned order of the First Appellate Court, directing expedited hearing.
Issues
Whether the judgment dated 24.08.2018 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Submissions/Arguments
Applicants argued that the judgment left them in a fait accompli situation and that the Court relied on a precedent to a limited extent without considering its full import, constituting an error apparent on the face of the record.
Respondent argued that the judgment was correct and that review was not maintainable.
Ratio Decidendi
Review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. A fait accompli situation or limited reliance on a precedent does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.
Judgment Excerpts
The applicants who are the original petitioners are seeking a review of the judgment dated 24.08.2018 passed by this Court pursuant to which the petition was allowed and the impugned order therein which failed to assign sufficient reasons was quashed and set aside with a direction to the First Appellate Court to expedite the hearing in the matter.
It was further his contention that there was an error apparent on the face of the record inasmuch as this Court had placed reliance in the judgment in Bhagwan s/o. Ganpatrao Ghodsay vs. Kachrulal s/o. Bastimal Samdariya [1987(2) Bom. C.R. 153] to a limited extent without looking at the full import of the said judgment.
Procedural History
The applicants filed a review application under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC before the High Court of Bombay at Goa seeking review of its judgment dated 24.08.2018. The judgment under review had allowed the respondent's petition and quashed an unreasoned order of the First Appellate Court, directing expedited hearing. The review application was heard and dismissed on 18.12.2018.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 47 Rule 1
