JAMUN PODDAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Review is directed against an order dismissing a writ petition. The moot question in this case is whether such a petition is maintainable, if so, under what circumstances.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that power of review inheres in every court of plenary jurisdiction. On the other hand, learned lawyer for the State submits that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. Prior to amendment of the Code of Civil Procedure review petitions were entertained under Order 47, Rule 1 or S.151, C.P.C. treating the writ proceeding as Civil Proceeding. But, after the Amendment Act 104 of 1976 in the Code of Civil Procedure, the said power is no more obtainable, in view of Explanation to Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure which specifically provides that, the procedure provided in the Code of Civil Procedure will not apply to a proceeding under Art.226 of the Constitution.

(3.) A Court has no power of review except when it is granted by Statute is axiomatic by long line of decisions. In the case of M.J. Kutinha v. Mrs. Nathal Pinto Bai, AIR 1941 Madras 272 it was observed that unless statute provides a remedy by way of review the Court cannot review its own judgement except in very exceptional circumstances such as for example "when it passed an order inadvertently or on account of some false representation by the officers of the Court". In the case of Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyuman Singhji, AIR 1970 SC 1273 it was observed "the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication". The same is the view expressed in other cases also.