BALJEET SINGH MANHAS Vs. JAMMU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition has been preferred in seeking review of the judgment and order dated 17 -04 -2003 formulated by this Court in Civil Revision No.54/2002, entitled Jammu Development Authority and others v. Baljeet Singh Manhas.

(2.) IT is this order, which is sought to be reviewed by the petitioner on the grounds that opportunity of being heard has not been provided to the petitioner and the revision stood decided setting the case exparte. It is further submitted that the provisions of section 48(1) of the Development Act, 1970 are attracted only when the Jammu Development Authority or any officer or employee of the authority has done any act in pursuance of the Development Act or any rule or regulation made thereunder. Further contention raised is that before determining the jurisdictional error of the Court, averments in the plaint are relevant. The order having been passed by the Court, without taking into account the averments in the plaint and the applicability of the provisions of section 48(1) of the Development Act, 1970, needs to be reviewed.

(3.) IT is settled proposition of law that scope of interference in review application is very much limited. Unless the order sought to be reviewed suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the order to stand wil lead to failure of justice, no interference can be made in review jurisdiction. The mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is one, which is self -evident and does not require a process of reasoning to use the review jurisdiction. 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 of the CPC. It is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". There is a clear and marked distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. Thus, a review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". The points raised have been dealt with by the Court while deciding the Revision Petition.