DIVISIONAL FOREST OFFICER (T) Vs. ASHOK TSHERING BHUTIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a review petition filed under Rule 44 and 45 of the Sikkim High Court (Practice and Procedure) Rules 2011 read with Sec. 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking review of the cost imposed upon the appellants vide order dtd. 10/3/2022. Heard the learned Additional Advocate General. On 2/6/2022 pursuant to the notice issued in the review petition the respondent appeared in person and stated that he had nothing to submit insofar as the review petition is concerned. The respondent is not present today. The review petition is based on three facts stated therein i.e.:-

(2.) The adjournment sought for by the appellants on 10/3/2022 was therefore, for genuine reasons and circumstances beyond the control of the conducting counsel.

(3.) The Supreme Court in S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy and Ors (2022) LiveLaw (SC) 685 held that the court's jurisdiction of review is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XL VII Rule 1 CPC.