Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court of India, exercising its inherent jurisdiction, considered multiple review petitions filed against its earlier judgment in Civil Appeal Nos.337, 340, 353, 360, 384, 386, 387 of 2021. The review petitioners, including Asha Ram (deceased) through legal representatives, Yasin (deceased) through legal representatives, and Dinesh Kumar, sought review of the judgment which had upheld the compensation awarded by the Reference Court at Rs.120 per square yard for land acquired by the U.P. Awas Evam Vikash Parishad. The Court had earlier set aside the High Court's determination of market value. In the review proceedings, the Court examined the contents of the review petitions and the grounds raised. The Court noted that the judgment under review had already considered all rival submissions and circumstances on record. It found that none of the grounds raised in the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on the face of the record. Consequently, the Court dismissed all review petitions, holding that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and cannot be used for reappreciation of evidence. The applications for listing review petitions in open court were rejected, while applications for permission to file review petitions were allowed. The order was passed by a bench comprising Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Hemant Gupta, and S. Ravindra Bhat on December 8, 2021.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Record - Review Petitions under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - Petitioners sought review of judgment upholding compensation at Rs.120 per square yard - Court found no error apparent on record and dismissed all review petitions - Held that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used for reappreciation of evidence (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petitions disclosed any error apparent on record to justify interference in review jurisdiction
Final Decision
All review petitions dismissed. Applications for listing in open court rejected. Applications for permission to file review petitions allowed.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction limited to error apparent on record
- No reappreciation of evidence in review
