Case: Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd Vs. Mawasi &amp; Others

has to be followed and practised.” 17. In Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (2006) 4 SCC 78 , the Court observed: “The parameters are prescribed in Order 47 CPC and for the purposes of this lis, permit the defendant to press for a rehearing “on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the records or for any other sufficient reason”. The former part of the rule deals with a situation attributable to the applicant, and the latter to a jural action which is manifestly incorrect or on which two conclusions are not possible. Neither of them postulate a rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcefully and/or cited binding precedents to the court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict.” 18. In State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta (2008) 8 SCC 612 , the Court considered the question whether a Tribunal established under the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 can review its decision, referred to Section 22(3) of that Act, some of the judicial precedents and observed: “At this stage it is apposite to observe that where a review is sought on the ground of discovery of new matter or evidence, such matter or evidence must be relevant and must be of such a character that if the same had been produced, it might have altered the judgment. In other words, mere discovery of new or important matter or evidence is not sufficient ground for review ex debito justitiae. Not only this, the party seeking review has also to show that such additional matter or evidence was not within its knowledge and even after the exercise of due diligence, the same could not be produced before the court earlier.The term “mistake or error apparent” by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment / decision.” 19. In the light of the propositions laid down in the aforementioned judgments, we shall now examine whether the petitioner has succeeded in making out a case for exercise of power by this Court under Article 137 of the Constitution read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. This consideration needs to be prefaced with an observation that the petitioner has not offered any explanation as to why it did not lead any evidence before the Reference Court to show that sale deed Exhibit P1 was not a bona fide transaction and the vendee had paid unusually high price for extraneous reasons. The parties had produced several sale deeds, majority of which revealed that the price of similar parcels of land varied from Rs. 6 to 7 lakhs per acre. A reading of the sale deeds would have prompted any person of ordinary prudence to make an enquiry as to why M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. (vendee) had paid more than Rs.2,42,00,000/- for 12 acres land, which have been purchased by the vendor only a year back at an average price of Rs.6 lakhs per acre. However, the fact of the matter is that neither the advocate for the petitioner nor its officers/officials, who were dealing with the cases made any attempt to lead such evidence. This may be because they were aware of the fact that at least in two other cases such parcels of land had been sold in 1993 for more than Rs.13 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs per acre and in 1996, a sale deed was executed in respect of the land of village Naharpur Kasan at the rate of Rs.25 lakhs per acre. This omission coupled with the fact that the petitioner’s assertion about commonality of the management of two companies is ex-facie incorrect leads to an irresistible inference that judgment dated 17.8.2010 does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting its review. Surely, in guise of seeking review, the petitioner cannot ask for de novo hearing of the appeals.20. The petitioner’s plea that the documents produced along with the review petitions could not be brought to the notice of the Reference Court and the High Court despite exercise of due diligence by its officers does not commend acceptance because it had not explained as to why the concerned officers/officials, who were very much aware of other sale transactions produced by themselves and the landowners did not try to find out the reasons for wide difference in the price of land sold by Exhibit P1 and other parcels of land sold by Exhibits P2 to P13 and Exhibits R1 to R15.21. Before concluding, we would like to add that while deciding the review petitions, this Court cannot make roving inquiries into the validity of the transaction involving the sale of land by M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. or declare the same to be invalid by assuming that the vendee had paid higher price to take benefit of an anticipated joint venture agreement with a foreign company. Of course, the petitioner has not controverted the statement made by the respondents that the vendee had sold the land to M/s. Lattu Finance and Investments Ltd. in 2004 for a sum of Rs.13,62,00,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.1,13,00,000/- per acre.

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

Explanation:
0[ds]This consideration needs to be prefaced with an observation that the petitioner has not offered any explanation as to why it did not lead any evidence before the Reference Court to show that sale deed Exhibit P1 was not a bona fide transaction and the vendee had paid unusually high price for extraneous reasons. The parties had produced several sale deeds, majority of which revealed that the price of similar parcels of land varied from Rs. 6 to 7 lakhs per acre. A reading of the sale deeds would have prompted any person of ordinary prudence to make an enquiry as to why M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. (vendee) had paid more than Rs.2,42,00,000/- for 12 acres land, which have been purchased by the vendor only a year back at an average price of Rs.6 lakhs per acre. However, the fact of the matter is that neither the advocate for the petitioner nor its officers/officials, who were dealing with the cases made any attempt to lead such evidence. This may be because they were aware of the fact that at least in two other cases such parcels of land had been sold in 1993 for more than Rs.13 lakhs and Rs.15 lakhs per acre and in 1996, a sale deed was executed in respect of the land of village Naharpur Kasan at the rate of Rs.25 lakhs per acre. This omission coupled with the fact that theassertion about commonality of the management of two companies is ex-facie incorrect leads to an irresistible inference that judgment dated 17.8.2010 does not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting its review. Surely, in guise of seeking review, the petitioner cannot ask for de novo hearing of the appeals.20. Theplea that the documents produced along with the review petitions could not be brought to the notice of the Reference Court and the High Court despite exercise of due diligence by its officers does not commend acceptance because it had not explained as to why the concerned officers/officials, who were very much aware of other sale transactions produced by themselves and the landowners did not try to find out the reasons for wide difference in the price of land sold by Exhibit P1 and other parcels of land sold by Exhibits P2 to P13 and Exhibits R1 to R15.21. Before concluding, we would like to add that while deciding the review petitions, this Court cannot make roving inquiries into the validity of the transaction involving the sale of land by M/s. Heritage Furniture Pvt. Ltd. to M/s. Duracell India Pvt. Ltd. or declare the same to be invalid by assuming that the vendee had paid higher price to take benefit of an anticipated joint venture agreement with a foreign company. Of course, the petitioner has not controverted the statement made by the respondents that the vendee had sold the land to M/s. Lattu Finance and Investments Ltd. in 2004 for a sum of Rs.13,62,00,000/- i.e. at the rate of Rs.1,13,00,000/- per acre.