PARTAP SINGH THAKUR Vs. BELI RAM AND SONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. Learned counsel for the petitioner after having argued for a long time, has failed to find out any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

(2.) It is more than settled that under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Orde 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". (See: Parsion Devi and others vs. Sumitri Devi and others (1997) 8 SCC 715).

(3.) To justify exercise of review jurisdiction, an error must be self-evident. The review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. It follows, therefore, that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view.