IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. Civil Review No. 13/2010 Reserved on: 19.9.2011 Decided on:14.10. 2011 _____________________________________________ Neelam Joshi. …Petitioner. Versus State of H.P. and others. …Respondents. ________________________________________________________ Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner : Mr. G.D. Verma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. B.C. Verma, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Sharma, Sr. Addl. A.G. with Mr. Rajinder Dogra, Addl. A.G. for respondent No.1. Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate for respondent No.2. _____________________________________________________ Justice Rajiv Sharma, Judge (oral). The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Neelam Joshi, who was respondent No.3 in CWP No. 893/2007 decided on 17.9.2009 (hereinafter referred to as respondent No.3 in order to maintain clarity). The permission was accorded in favour of Neelam Joshi to raise construction by the Municipal Corporation on 15.3.2000. The same stood rejected on 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 6.6.2001. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation passed the order of removal of construction on 5.3.2003. The appeal preferred against this order dated 5.3.2003 was withdrawn. She preferred revision before the Principal Secretary (Urban Development), who passed orders on 17.1.2006. We have observed in the judgment that the remedy available to Neelam Joshi was to file appeal and not revision before the Principal Secretary (Urban Development). He lacked inherent jurisdiction to entertain the revision. Thus, he could not pass the order dated 17.1.2006. We have quashed order dated 17.1.2006 in CWP No. 893/2007. 2. Mr. G.D. Verma, learned Senior Advocate has argued that the Assistant Collector 1st Grade, Shimla has passed order in case No. 1/2008 on 17.1.2008 whereby partition proceedings were initiated by one of the co-owners. The appeal has also been preferred against the order dated 17.1.2008. 3. We are of the considered view that there is no error apparent on the face of record necessitating review of judgment dated 17.9.2009. The fact that partition proceedings had been initiated and the order has been passed on 17.1.2008 was within the knowledge of respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 is not 3 in appeal whereby erroneous decision is re-heard. A person, who has obtained judgment in the court of law, he is by law entitled not to be deprived of the fruits without cogent grounds. The review petitioner cannot be permitted to fill up the lacunae. It is in those cases where glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept, the review is maintainable. 4. It is settled law by now that the High Court has inherent power, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to review its judgment; however, it has to be done as per principles laid down in order 47 rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see: AIR 1963 SC 1909). 5. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/s Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. versus Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 674 has held that an error apparent on the face of the record exists if of two or more views canvassed on the point it is possible to hold that the controversy can be said to admit of only one of them but if the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view having regard to what the record states, it is difficult to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. Their Lordships have further held that the normal 4 principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. Their Lordships have further held that review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be considered except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. Their Lordships have held as under: “8. It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. Sajjan Sing v. State of Rajasthan, (1965) 1 SCR 933 at p. 948. Ror instance, if the attention of the Court is not drawn to a material statutory provision during the original gearing, the Court will revise its judgment. G.L. Gupta v. D. N. Mehta, (1971) 3 SCR 748 at p. 760. The Court may also reopen its judgment if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pass an order to do full and effective justice. O. N. Mohindroo v. Dist. Judge, Delhi, (1971) 2 SCR 11 at p. 27. Power to review its judgments has been conferred on the Supreme Court by Art. 137 of the Constitution, and that power is subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or the rules made under Art. 145. In a civil proceeding, an application for review is 5 entertained only on a ground mentioned in O. XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and in a criminal proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record. (Order XL, R.1, Supreme Court Rules, 1966). But whatever the nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be recognised except 'where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility'. Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib, (1975) 3 SCR 933. 9. Now, besides the fact that most of the legal material so assiduously collected and placed before us by the learned Additional Solicitor General, who has now been entrusted to appear for the respondent, was never brought to our attention when the appeals were heard, we may also examine whether the judgment suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record. Such an error exists if of two or more views canvassed on the point it is possible to hold that the controversy can be said to admit of only one of them. If the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view having regard to what the record states, it is difficult to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record.” 6. Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sow Chandra Kantne and another versus Sheikh Habib, (1975) 1 SCC 674 have held that the review stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality. Their Lordships have further held that mere repetition, through different counsel, of old and overruled 6 arguments, second innings over ineffectually covered ground or minor mistakes of inconsequential import are obviously insufficient. 7. Accordingly, in view of the observations and discussions made hereinabove, there is no error apparent on the face of the record and as such the petition is dismissed. Pending application(s) if any, also stands disposed of. No costs. (Justice R.B. Misra), Judge. (Justice Rajiv Sharma), Judge. 14.10. 2011 *awasthi*