RAJA RAM SINGH Vs. PUROHIT UDAI NARAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a review petition filed by the applicant against a decision of this Bench, dated 29. 5. 56 sanctioning matmi in the same of the opposite party.

(2.) WE have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and have examined the record of the case. A preliminary point has been raised by the learned counsel for the opposite party about the maintainability of this review petition. His contention is that the proceedings in which this review petition has been filed started under the Jaipur State Matmi Rules, 1945 and as there is no provision for entertaining an application for review which is a creation of the statute, this application is incompetent In support of this RRD 1955, p. 306 was cited wherein this Board relying on 1951 RLW p. 290 held that in the absence of any statutory provision for review, a review petition under the Jaipur State Matmi Rules is incompetent. As against this the learned counsel for the appellant showed us a copy of unreported judgment of this Board (Case No, 179 Matmi, Sikar of 1954, Boormal vs. State decided on 12. 6. 56 in which a Division Bench entertained a review petition ). It is clear from a perusal of this decision that the point whether or not a review petition is competent under the Jaipur State Matmi Rules was neither urged nor the learned Bench decided the issue as to whether a review was competent or not. The learned counsel for the applicant, however, conceded that in the absence of any statutory provision for review a review, petition is, as a rule, incompetent. He, however, argued that after the promulgation of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 the procedure laid down therein about review etc. should be followed. This argument seems to be due to the fact that the learned counsel forgot to notice that the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Amendment Act 1951 (Act No. XX of 1951) repealed the provisions of the Rajasthan Revenue Courts (Procedure and Jurisdiction) Act, 1951 in so far as it related to group C, items 6 and 7, group D, item 14 and group E, item 4 under the Jaipur State Matmi Rules. This being so, the procedure laid down in the Matmi Rules is the only one to be followed in deciding matmi cases. This contention, therefore, also fails. In the alternative he also argued that as the impugned decision of this bench was given in utter disregard of some of the documents produced by the applicant in support of his claim, it was a fit case for reviewing its order. In support of this he cited A. I. R. 1919 Madras page 244 in which it was observed that the power to review even if not permitted by the statute may be exercised if it is discovered that a mistake had been made in the judgment through inadvertence or the proceedings were vitiated by fraud or misrepresentation of an officer of the court. WE have gone through this ruling and we find that instead of supporting the applicant's contention it goes against him. The learned judges who delivered the judgment in that case clearly held that in the absence of the statutory provisions for review an application for review was incompetent and that it was only in very exceptional circumstances, such as inadvertence, fraud or some such other grounds that a court may exercise its inherent powers to review its own judgment. In the present case nothing has been shown to us that any such exceptional circumstances existed in the order sought to be reviewed. In A. I. R. 1952 Rajasthan page 132 in which a reference has been given to A. I. R. 1919 Madras page 244 referred to above, it has been held that it is a well settled principle of law that unless a court is empowered by the statute to review its own judgment it cannot review it. As already stated above, the Matmi Rules prescribe a self contained procedure for the disposal of the Matmi cases and as there is no provision for entertaining a review petition under the said rules, this court has no powers under the law to allow any review petition. In 1957 Allahabad p. 67, the same view has been reaffirmed and after examining the up to date-case law on the subject it was held that as a general rule no court or judge has powers to re-hear a review, alter or vary any judgment or order after it has been entered or drawn up respectively. Unless authorised by the statute, a court or a judge has no inherent power to set aside or modify a final order once made merely because it is wrong. In view of this clear position of law and for the reason that the Matmi Rules do not provide for a review petition, we are clearly of the opinion that this review petition must fail. WE perused the documents referred to by the learned counsel for the sake of satisfying ourselves as to whether they disclosed any exceptional circumstances of the type mentioned in A. I. R. 1919 page 244 and our finding is against the applicant. It has not been urged that any fraud was played on this court that the judgment given by us is intrinsically void. Taking this aspect of the matter into consideration, we are of the opinion that this review petition must fail and accordingly it is dismissed. .