M/S PADAM EXPORTS v. Union of India

1. The present Review Petition has been filed by the appellant seeking review of the judgment dated 10.08.2016 and recall of the order dated 15.11.2016, passed in LPA No. 450/2016. The appeal was dismissed vide order dated 10.08.2016, holding inter-alia as under:-

2. Thereafter, an application bearing CM No.42296/2016 was filed by the appellant for modification of the aforesaid order dated 10.08.2016, 2017:DHC:2357-DB wherein, the appellant prayed as under:- “a) Hon‟ble Court mercifully be pleased to clarify/modify and recall the order dated 10-08-2016 passed in LPA No. 450/2016 by stating that the matter has not been decided on merits u/s 151 CPC enabling the Appellant to seek justice from the appropriate forum of law especially in view of the order dated 17-06-2010 of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court and; b) To grant leave and liberty to the Appellant to challenge the legality of impugned order dated 25- 07-2006 passed by the respondents by way of Writ petition before the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court for hearing and final decision on merits of the case in the interest of justice especially in view of the order dated 17-06-2010 of the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court; c) Alternatively, To recall the order dated 10-08-2016 in LPA No. 450/2016 and to condone the delay in filing the Appeal, if any, u/s 151 CPC and the Appeal be listed for hearing and final decision on merits expeditiously in the interest of justice otherwise it will cause grave injustice and great hardships to the Appellant for no fault on their part as the Appellant is on the verge of total collapse; d) Pass such other and further order in the interest of Justice as deemed fit and just;”

3. The application for modification was dismissed vide order dated 15.11.2016, wherein, it was held as under:- “LPA No.450/2016 was dismissed consequent to the dismissal of the application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. The present application for modification therefore cannot be entertained since the same would virtually amount to entering into the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, the application is dismissed”

4. Subsequent to this, the Appellant has preferred the present Review Petition and prayed as follows:- “a) Hon‟ble Court mercifully be pleased to review/recall the order dated 10-08-2016 and 15-11-2016 passed in LPA No. 450/2016 and C.M. No. 42296/2016 and to condone the delay in filing the Appeal, if any, u/s 151 CPC and the Appeal be listed for further hearing and final decision on the merits expeditiously in the interest of justice and to prevent abuse of the Process of the Court otherwise it will cause grave injustice and great hardships to the Appellant for no fault in their partas the appellant is on the verge of total collapse b) Alternatively, To grant leave to withdraw the present LPA No. 450/2016 and Writ Petition(C) No. 4838/2010 with liberty to the Appellant to challenge the legality of order dated 25-07-2006 passed by the respondents by way of Writ petition for hearing and final decision on the merits before the Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in the interest of justice especially in view of the order dated 17-06-2010 of the Bombay High Court; c) Alternatively, Hon‟ble Court mercifully be pleased to recall and clarify the order dated 24-09-2010 passed in Writ Petition No. 4838/2010 and order dated 10-08-2016 passed in LPA No. 450/2016 by stating that the matter has not been decided on merits u/s 151 CPC enabling the Appellant to seek justice from the appropriate forum of law especially in view of the order dated 17-06-2010 of Hon‟ble Bombay High Court and; d) To provide amicus curie senior counsel to represent the case of the Appellant before this Hon‟ble Court; e) Pass such other and further order in the interest of Justice as deemed fit and just;”

5. At the outset, it may be stated that the scope of a review petition lies in a narrow compass. Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC lays down the parameters of exercising review jurisdiction. The said provision makes it abundantly clear that the power of review can be invoked on discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced at the time when the judgment was passed or on the ground of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. An error which is not glaringly obvious and has to be identified by a process of reasoning, can hardly be described as an error apparent on the face of the record

6. In the case of Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. vs. Govt. of A.P. reported as AIR 1964 SC 1372, the scope of a review petition was delineated by the Supreme Court in the following words:-

7. In the case of Parsion Devi vs. Sumitri Devi reported as (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Apex Court had held as follows:-