Supreme Court of India

Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma

AIR 1979 SC 1047; (1979) 4 SCC 38919791 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The appellant's writ petition in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Manipur, challenging the settlement of part of a public road on respondents 1 to 4, was allowed on 25 May 1965. The respondents applied for review under O.XLVII R.1 and S.151 CPC. A successor Judicial Commissioner allowed review because two documents on record had been overlooked and because one writ petition could not challenge settlements in favour of different respondents.
Issue
Whether these reasons were grounds for review.
Held
There is no bar to review under Article 226, but the power has definite limits: new and important matter or evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or an analogous ground. It may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. Documents not relied on by the parties and a procedural point did not justify review. The review order was set aside and the original order restored; appeal allowed without costs.
Principle
Review may be exercised on new and important matter, an error apparent on the face of the record or an analogous ground, but not on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits
Cite this

Facts

  • The appellant's writ petition in the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Manipur, challenging the settlement of part of a public road on respondents 1 to 4, was allowed on 25 May 1965. The respondents applied for review under O.XLVII R.1 and S.151 CPC. A successor Judicial Commissioner allowed review because two documents on record had been overlooked and because one writ petition could not challenge settlements in favour of different respondents.

Issue

  1. Whether these reasons were grounds for review.

Held

  • There is no bar to review under Article 226, but the power has definite limits: new and important matter or evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or an analogous ground. It may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. Documents not relied on by the parties and a procedural point did not justify review. The review order was set aside and the original order restored; appeal allowed without costs.

Ratio decidendi

Review is not an appeal in disguise; an erroneous decision on merits must be corrected by appeal.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Standard authority on the grounds and limits of review under O.XLVII R.1.

Cite this

Citation

Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma AIR 1979 SC 1047; (1979) 4 SCC 389

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/622454/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.