Case: Sunil Vasudeva and Ors Vs. Sundar Gupta and Ors

a fresh civil suit in respect of the subject property in Delhi and either party has not brought to the notice of the Court the mandate of law as envisaged Under Section 293 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 that the civil suit against the Income tax Department is not maintainable under the law, which appears to be mistakenly omitted by the Court in arriving at the rival claims of the parties. 27. It was taken note of by the High Court in its review jurisdiction and arrived to the conclusion that there appears to be an error apparent on the face of record and consequently allowed the application for review, recalled the Order dated 19th October, 2012 and set aside the Judgment and Order dated 31st March, 2006 passed in miscellaneous application and for restoration of Writ Petition No. 18500(W) of 1985 to be heard on its own merits under the impugned judgment dated 24th September, 2014. 28. The basic principles in which the review application could be entertained have been eloquently examined by this Court in Kamlesh Verma (supra) wherein this Court held as under: 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the Petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words any other sufficient reason have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius AIR 1954 SC 526 to mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. (2013) 8 SCC 337. 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. 29. Taking note of the exposition of the above principles let us consider the facts on record and it reveals that the effect of Section 293 of the Income Tax Act has been mistakenly omitted under the judgment in review and that apart, the consequential effect of the order of the High Court on an application filed by the Union of India in Civil Suit No. 1451 of 1957 dated 8th September, 1965 was open to be examined in the writ proceedings and it was the defence of the Income Tax Department in the reply to the review application and also before this Court in their counter affidavit that in the auction sale which was held in the month of August, 1964, the permission from the Court was not obtained and after the order came to be passed on their application by the Single Judge of the High Court in Suit No. 1451 of 1957 dated 8th September, 1965, it will certainly affect the auction sale held by the Income Tax Department in reference to the subject property in question and it was their stand throughout in the proceedings. 30. We find that the Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta heard and reserved the judgment in Writ Petition No. 18500(W) of 1985 in March/April 1986 and after nearly four and half years, the judgment pronounced on 26th October, 1990 relegating the parties to raise all the contentions to their defence in the pending civil suit before the District Judge, Delhi itself indicates that the Single Judge was not inclined to express its opinion on merits obviously for the reason that if the finding was recorded, it would have prejudiced the rights of the parties to the litigation to be examined in the alleged pending civil suit in the District Court, Delhi which although was dismissed on 3rd October, 1986 much before the pronouncement of the judgment dated 26th October, 1990 by the Single Judge of the High Court. 31. In the given facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to dilate the issues on merits raised in the Writ Petition No. 18500(w) of 1985 filed at the instance of the Respondents before the High Court of Calcutta, but if the civil suit was not maintainable as alleged in view of Section 293 of the Income Tax Act and this was the purported defence of the Respondents and of the Income Tax Department and consequential effect to the Order dated 8th September, 1965 of which a reference has been made by us, no party could be left remediless and whatever the grievance the party has raised before the Court of law, has to be examined on its own merits. In our considered view, there appears no error being committed by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment dated 24th September, 2014 in exercise of its review jurisdiction and that needs no interference by this Court.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]29. Taking note of the exposition of the above principles let us consider the facts on record and it reveals that the effect of Section 293 of the Income Tax Act has been mistakenly omitted under the judgment in review and that apart, the consequential effect of the order of the High Court on an application filed by the Union of India in Civil Suit No. 1451 of 1957 dated 8th September, 1965 was open to be examined in the writ proceedings and it was the defence of the Income Tax Department in the reply to the review application and also before this Court in their counter affidavit that in the auction sale which was held in the month of August, 1964, the permission from the Court was not obtained and after the order came to be passed on their application by the Single Judge of the High Court in Suit No. 1451 of 1957 dated 8th September, 1965, it will certainly affect the auction sale held by the Income Tax Department in reference to the subject property in question and it was their stand throughout in the proceedings30. We find that the Single Judge of the High Court of Calcutta heard and reserved the judgment in Writ Petition No. 18500(W) of 1985 in March/April 1986 and after nearly four and half years, the judgment pronounced on 26th October, 1990 relegating the parties to raise all the contentions to their defence in the pending civil suit before the District Judge, Delhi itself indicates that the Single Judge was not inclined to express its opinion on merits obviously for the reason that if the finding was recorded, it would have prejudiced the rights of the parties to the litigation to be examined in the alleged pending civil suit in the District Court, Delhi which although was dismissed on 3rd October, 1986 much before the pronouncement of the judgment dated 26th October, 1990 by the Single Judge of the High Court31. In the given facts and circumstances, we are not inclined to dilate the issues on merits raised in the Writ Petition No. 18500(w) of 1985 filed at the instance of the Respondents before the High Court of Calcutta, but if the civil suit was not maintainable as alleged in view of Section 293 of the Income Tax Act and this was the purported defence of the Respondents and of the Income Tax Department and consequential effect to the Order dated 8th September, 1965 of which a reference has been made by us, no party could be left remediless and whatever the grievance the party has raised before the Court of law, has to be examined on its own merits. In our considered view, there appears no error being committed by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment dated 24th September, 2014 in exercise of its review jurisdiction and that needs no interference by this Court.