DIBAKAR JENA Vs. STATE OF ORISSA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner seeks review of judgment dated 21 -4 -1994 primarily on the ground that essence of prayer in the writ application has been misconstrued. It was not for nullification of result of election to the post of Sarpanch of Kurujang Gram Panchayat; but to declare the process of election illegal as some voters had scope for voting twice; one in respect of Grama Panchayat election, and other in respect of Notified Area Council election. In fact, in the concluding paragraph it was observed that there was illegal inclusion of some voters in two electroal rolls. After having so observed this Court did not interfere on the ground that such inclusion did not materially effected result of election, and in any event dispute could be raised in an election dispute before appropriate forum. This according to petitioner was inappropriate adjudication of his grievance. Mr K. C. Lenka, learned counsel for petitioner states that petitioner had not filed writ application in his individual capacity but was representing cause of the villagers.

(2.) IT is well -settled that a party is not entitled to seek review of the judgment delivered by a Court, merely for the purpose of rehearing and fresh decision of the case. Normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by a Court is final departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do not for instance, if attention of the Court is not drawn to material statutory provision during original hearing. Court may revise its judgment in such cases. It may also do so if a manifest wrong has been done and it is necessary to pase an order to do full and effective justice. In civil proceeding, an application for review is entertained on the grounds mentioned in Order 47,Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, 'CPC). and in criminal proceeding on the ground of error apparent on the face of record. Whatever be nature of the proceeding, it is beyond dispute that review of proceeding cannot be equated with original hearing of the case and finality of judgment delivered by Court will not be re -considered except where a glaring omission or patent mistake or grave error in the order has crept in. We do not consider the case at hand to be a case of that nature. - - Application for review is accordingly rejected.