Summary
The Telangana High Court had dismissed the respondents' revision petitions, upholding the Joint Collector's finding that a 1967 surrender of protected tenancy rights was ante-dated and fabricated, and had dismissed their first review. This Court disposed of their SLP with liberty to seek review if they obtained genuine documents. The High Court then allowed a second review on certified copies of revenue records, photocopies of which had already been filed in revision. The Court held that review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC needs new evidence not available despite due diligence, or an error apparent on the record. The respondents had pleaded neither and had let five opportunities pass. The second review was an abuse of process and should have been rejected as not maintainable. The appeals were allowed and the revision judgment restored.
Issues
- Whether a second set of review petitions was maintainable when the respondents relied on certified copies of revenue records already filed as photocopies earlier.
- What a party seeking review on the ground of discovery of new evidence must establish under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Provisions considered
- Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Review lies only for new and important evidence not within the applicant's knowledge or producible despite due diligence, for an error apparent on the face of the record, or for an analogous sufficient reason. None was pleaded or shown, so the second review was not maintainable. (¶¶ 11, 12, 13, 26, 33, 35)
Held
- Review is not an appeal in disguise. It lies for an error that is self-evident on the record, not one detected by a process of reasoning. A court may correct a mistake but not substitute its view merely because two views are possible, and it cannot reappreciate evidence or hear repeated arguments that were rejected. Any other sufficient reason means a reason analogous to the specified grounds. (¶¶ 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 26)
- A party relying on the discovery of new evidence must show that the evidence was not within its knowledge and could not be produced despite due diligence before the order was made. The evidence must also be such that it might have altered the result. (¶¶ 21, 26, 33)
- The respondents had already filed photocopies of the same surrender records in revision, and the High Court had considered them. Their second review gave no explanation or affidavit about any fresh discovery or diligence. They had five earlier chances to produce certified copies, so the documents could not ground a review. (¶¶ 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34)
- The liberty given by this Court to seek review did not enlarge the grounds of review. The rules required new evidence unavailable despite due diligence, not merely genuine documents. Successive review petitions against the same order, without any ground within Order XLVII, were an abuse of process and should have been rejected as not maintainable without going into the merits. (¶¶ 35, 36)
Result
Appeals allowed. The High Court's review judgment is set aside and its revision judgment dismissing the respondents' revision petitions is restored; parties to bear their own costs.