ANDHRA STEEL CORPORATION LIMITED MAHADEVAPURAM BANGALORE Vs. KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD CAUVERY BHAVAN BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS review application has been filed almost after the expiry of one year from the date of judgment and decision of the writ petition. The order sought t6 be reviewed is dated 23-10-1990 which has been passed by Brother Hon'ble Justice hanumantappa in Writ Petition No. 42112 of 1982. The writ petition had been disposed of after reference to the various arguments raised and the case laws referred in following terms:

(2.) THE review of this order is sought on the ground that on 4th June, 1985, there had been some meeting and some understanding had been arrived at which was recorded in minutes dated 4-6-1985, copy of which has been enclosed as annexure-B to the review application. It has been further stated in the review application that at the time of hearing attention of the Court was not invited to the said minutes or the facts recorded in the minutes as alleged that the claim made by karnataka Electricity Board had been agreed to be withdrawn. In the application as such, it has been stated that in view of the understanding a settlement or minutes there was no question of petitioner prefering an appeal or depositing Rs. 2. 00 lakhs as directed in the order. It has been stated in para 10 of the review application that failure to bring the notice of the minutes before this Hon'ble Court on 4-6-1985 was a bona fide mistake on the part of both the parties. It is on this ground the review of this order is sought. Jurisdiction to review under Order 47, Rule 1 of civil Procedure Code is not an appeal in disguise. It is circumscribed by the conditions prescribed by Order 47, Rule 1. But the law as has been laid down the jurisdiction to review is very limited and is not to be taken as analogous to an appellate jurisdiction. Review can be filed in case of discovery of a new and important material which the party seeking the review has inspite of exercise of due diligence by him could not know, or did not have the knowledge of that material or inspite of due diligence exercised by him, though the documents had been in his knowledge but he could not produce that material before the court at the time when the order or decree sought to be reviewed was passed or in cases where the order impugned suffers from not only simple error, but from error apparent on record. The error apparent on the face of the record has also been defined by their Lordships of Supreme Court to mean an error which can be pointed out without lengthy arguments and it has also been clarified that merely because two different views are possible that will not make a case of error apparent on the face of record.

(3.) IN the present case it is not the case of the applicant that there was any error apparent on the face of record. The case of the applicant is that he could not file the minutes dated 4-6-1985 which he wanted the Court to take into consideration. Nowhere in the petition it has been indicated why those documents could not be filed or why those minutes could not be brought to the notice of the Court by the petitioner. Whether those minutes were not within the knowledge of the party. If they were not within the knowledge of the petitioner party then petitioner had also to clarify as to what diligence or efforts he made to know about that. In this case the applicant has nowhere asserted that minutes were not known to him, as they were entered into by and between the applicants and the opposite party in accordance with law. It is also not the case of the petitioner/applicant that he made exercise of due diligence to find out those documents to bring into the Court i. e. , the minutes of 4-6-1985, but yet the applicant could not produce these minutes sought to be produced for seeking review. It is the applicant's case that due to bona fide mistake he could not produce the documents relating to meeting dated 4-6-1985 bring them to the notice of the Court at the time the order sought to be reviewed had been passed. No special reason as has been indicated anywhere. In such circumstances, board's saying that because a bona fide mistake i. e. , the minutes could not be brought to the notice of the Court is not sufficient for exercise of review jurisdiction. It is well-settled principle of law that when powers given are circumscribed by conditions then it is under those conditions only the powers can be exercised and within the four corners by which powers are limited and not otherwise. In the present case, applicant has failed to make out the case for reviewing of the order. In my view the application for review is misconceived. No doubt it may be open to him to produce those minutes before the Appellate authority for consideration. Appellate Authority may consider while deciding the appeal and determining the liability etc. , in accordance with law and the order passed by the learned Single judge. This Court in very many cases has clearly laid down that the powers of Appellate Authority are same as of original unless specific circumstances are pleaded. If the Appellate Authority finds that demand made by the Board is incorrect and unsustainable in law and on facts then the sum of rupees two lakhs which has been ordered to be deposited by the petitioner will be refunded or it will be adjusted towards the future consumption charges so if there has been any agreement or minutes in the instant case or dispute or there is any agreement not to demand that amount then it is always open to the applicant to place that before the Appellate Authority and it is within its jurisdiction to decide the matter as an Appellate authority. With these observations and clarifications the review application is hereby rejected as misconceived. The review application is hereby dismissed.