Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi vs KL Rathi Steels Limited 2024 INSC 454 – Review Jurisdiction

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 114 & Order XLVII – No review is available upon a change or reversal of a proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger Bench of this Court overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the judgment/order under review was based- The subsequent overruling of a decision and even its recall, for that matter, would not afford a ground for review within the parameters of Order XLVII of the CPC

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 114 & Order XLVII – Review power under section 114 read with Order XLVII, CPC is available to be exercised on setting up by the review petitioner any of the following grounds: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) any other sufficient reason. 40. Insofar as (i) (supra) is concerned, the review petitioner has to show that such evidence (a) was actually available on the date the court made the order/decree, (b) with reasonable care and diligence, it could not be brought by him before the court at the time of the order/decree, (c) it was relevant and material for a decision, and (d) by reason of its absence, a miscarriage of justice has been caused in the sense that had it been produced and considered by the court, the ultimate decision would have been otherwise- Regarding (ii) (supra), the review petitioner has to satisfy the court that the mistake or error committed by it is self-evident and such mistake or error can be pointed out without any long-drawn process of reasoning; and, if such mistake or error is not corrected and is permitted to stand, the same will lead to a failure of justice. There cannot be a fit-inall definition of “mistake or error apparent on the face of the record” and it has been considered prudent by the courts to determine whether any mistake or error does exist considering the facts of each individual case coming before it- With regard to (iii) (supra), we can do no better than refer to the traditional view in Chhajju Ram (supra), a decision of a Bench of seven Law Lords of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. It was held there that the words “any other sufficient reason” means “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified immediately previously”, meaning thereby (i) and (ii) (supra). (Para 39-42)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Section 151- Inherent powers of the court under section 151, CPC cannot be invoked if there exists a remedy made available by the CPC itself. (Para 96)