UMESH CHANDRA LAHKAR Vs. SIBA RAM DEKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE review petition is directed against the judgment of this Court dated July 12, 1988 in Civil Revision No. 307 of 1988.

(2.) THE petitioner, as plaintiff, filed a suit for eviction of the defendants on the ground that they were defaulters and that the suit house was bonafide required by the plaintiff for his personal use. The trial-Court held the defendants to be defaulters and decreed the suit for eviction. On appeal, the appellate Court came to the conclusion that the defendants were not defaulters and allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court. Against the judgment of the appellate Court, Civil Revision No. 307/88 was filed before this Court. In the revision petition, it was contended by the plaintiff that the finding arrived at by the learned appellate Court on the point of default in payment of rent, was perverse, and that it was not based on any evidence on record. This Court on perusal of the evidence on record held that the finding of fact arrived at by the appellate Court was based on materials on record and as such the same could not be interfered with. The revision petition was accordingly, dismissed. The plaintiff has now filed the present review petition.

(3.) IT is well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek review of a judgment delivered by the Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that as a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. See Sajan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (1986)1 SCR 933 and Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, AIR 1980 SC 674. It is beyond dispute that a review proceeding cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case, and the finality of the judgment delivered by the Court will not be reconsidered except 'where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility'. (Chandra Kanta v. Sheikh Habib, (1975)3 SCR 935 and Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor, Delhi (supra).