ASHOK KUMAR MONGA Vs. UCO BANK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS DIRECTED TOWARDS THE ORDER DATED MAY 11, 2001 AND HAS BEEN FILED ON 12TH DECEMBER, 2001, AFTER APPROACHING THE DIVISION BENCH IN LPA NO. 281/2001 WHICH WAS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN ON OCTOBER 10,2001.

(2.) A VIEW ONCE TAKEN IS NOT REVIEWABLE UNLESS SOME MISTAKE OR ERROR HAS BEEN COMMITTED WHICH IS PLAINLY AND PALPABLY APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD. AN ERROR CAN APPROPRIATELY AND PROPERLY BE SET ASIDE BY THE APPELLATE COURT, IF, IN THE LATTER'S WISDOM, THE EXPOSITION OF LAW OR TREATMENT OF FACTS IS INCORRECT.

(3.) THE OBSERVATIONS IN (RAJA) INDRAJIT PRATAP BAHADUR SAHI V. AMAR SINGH AND OTHERS, AIR 1923 PC 128, WHICH HAVE STOOD THE TEST OF EIGHTY LONG YEARS, APPLY IN FULL FORCE. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT WHERE AN APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED A REVIEW IS OUT OF QUESTION. IN DEV KRISHNA AND ANOTHER V. DHANI RAM SALIGRAM, AIR 1959 MP 217, A DIVISION BENCH OF THAT COURT HAD OBSERVED THAT A COURT HAS JURISDICTION TO DECIDE WRONGLY AND A REVIEW AGAINST SUCH A DECISION IS NOT IN ORDER. ONCE ARGUMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE AND A DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED, RECOURSE TO A REVIEW IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED. IN SMT. MEER BHANJA V. SMT. NIRMALA KUMARI CHOUDHURY, AIR 1995 SC 455, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE APEX COURT THAT THE REVIEW COURT SHOULD NOT ACT AS APPELLATE COURT AND THE ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD CONTEMPLATES THAT GENRE OF ERRORS WHICH STRIKES ONE ON A MERE LOOKING AT THE RECORD AND WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY LONG-DRAWN PROCESS OF REASONING ON POINTS WHERE THERE MAY CONCEIVABLY BE TWO OPINIONS. SIMILAR VIEWS HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED IN PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS V. SUMITRI DEVI AND OTHERS, 1997(8) SCC 715. IT WAS HELD THAT A MISTAKE OR ERROR APPARENT ON THE FACE OF THE RECORD IS ONE WHICH IS SELF-EVIDENT AND DOES NOT REQUIRE A PROCESS OF REASONING; DISTINCT FROM AN ERRONEOUS DECISION. A REHEARING IN THE MATTER FOR DETECTING AN ERROR IN THE EARLIER DECISION AND THEN CORRECTING IT DOES NOT FALL WITHIN THE AMBIT OF REVIEW JURISDICTION.