B C NARAYAN Vs. VIJAYANAGAR SYNDICATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) on 18-6-1992 a common order was passed by this court in civil revision petition nos. 275 of 1991,277 of 1991,278 of 1991 and 279 of 1991. These civil revision petitions arise out of judgments and decrees passed in S.C. nos. 1518, 1415,1416 and 1414 of 1986.

(2.) the petitioners who are defendants in the small cause suits have sought review of the common order dated 18-6-1992 passed by this court and they are numbered as civil petition nos. 530,531,532 and 533 of 1992. Since questions raised by the petitioners in all the civil petitions referred above are common, it is proposed to pass a common order. Points formulated for review being : 1. Scope of Section 69(1) and (2) of Indian Partnership Act which is mandatory has not been properly applied to the facts in these.cases and declaration of law, by the Supreme Court on this point has not been adverted by this court while passing the impugned orders. 2. Substantive law must give precedence to procedural law, and as such mandatory compliance of Provisions of Section 69(1) and (2) of Partnership Act, must be given precedence to the procedural mandate as envisaged under order 30, Rule 1 of C.P.C.

(3.) the court erred in permitting the plaintiff to amend the plaints, witha view to regularise the factual omissions which are detrimental to the maintainability of the suits in question. Regarding points-1 and 2 raised by the petitioners, it is to be noted that in paragraphs-12,13,14 and 15 of the impugned order which is sought for review, this court has in detail discussed the scope of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act, placing reliance on the ratio decidendi of the Supreme Court cases reported in h.h. mahrani mandalsa devi and others v m. Ramnarain private ltd., AIR 1965 SC 1718 and purushottam umedbhai and co v M/s. Manilaland sons, AIR 1961 SC 325. Further, it is to be noted that this court has referred to gujarat decision cited by the petitioners reported in 1969 gujarat 176 bharat sarvedaya mill v mohata brothers, regarding point No. 3, this court while permitting the plaintiffs to cause amendment of the plaint arrived at its reasonings placing reliance on the Supreme Court decision reported in owers and persons interested in m.k "valipero" v fernandez lopez, AIR 1989 SC 2206. 3. What is to be adverted in these petitions is whether this court overlooked binding decision of the Supreme Court warranting reviewing of the order. It is well-settled that a decision which is erroneous in law is no ground for review and that it is only where such decision can be characterised as vitiated by an error apparent on the face of record it can be reviewed. So also a mistake sirnplicitcr either in the realm of fact or of law is no ground for review. Further mere omission on the pan of court to consider a decision however regrettable, however, wrong cannot possibly be regarded as constituting an error apparent on the race of record. Even assuming it to be an error that may be discovered from record itself it is to be seen that such an error cannot be construed as an error apparent on the face of record, since mistake of law cannot be said as mistake apparent on the face of record.