- Review of Judgment / Order
- Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
- Facts of the Case
- Reliance is placed on the decision in Keshardeo Chamria Vs. Radhakissen Chamria and Others, AIR 1953 SC 23 (paragraph 13 and 21) and Jagat Dhish Bhargava Vs. Jawahar Lal Bhargava and Others, AIR 1961 SC 832 (paragraph 13).
- Reliance is placed on the decision in Bhargavi Amma Vs. Sankara Panicker, 1961 KLJ 650, and in particular paragraph 7 and 8.
The Kerala High Court on 29 August, 2011 in Kizhakkekara Thomas Vs. State of Kerala held that “once a review is granted, the original order/judgment in respect of which review is granted becomes non-existent and then it is the function of the Court to pass fresh judgment/order.
Justice Thomas P. Joseph observed that “in view of the review granted, the judgment became non – existent, it was the function of the Sub Judge to pass revised judgment in the respective cases after considering the questions raised in the applications for review also.
# Review of Judgment / Order
“In the circumstance, subsequent applications need only be treated as a request to the learned Sub Judge to rectify the mistake the Court has committed in not passing a revised judgment. Sub Judge was required to pass revised judgment,” the judgment said.
While allowing the original petitions and setting aside the impugned orders the High Court directed the Learned Sub Judge to treat the applications as a reminder to the Court to pass revised judgment. The Court also directed to pass revised judgment after hearing the parties and after taking into account the points raised in the applications for review as well.
# Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Sub-R.2 of R.4 of O.47 of the Code says that when the Court is of opinion that the application for review should be granted, it shall grant the same subject to the proviso mentioned therein.
R.8 of O.47 of the Code says that when an application for review is granted, a note thereof shall be made in the register and the Court may at once re – hear the case or make such order in regard to the re – hearing as it thinks fit.
# Facts of the Case
The land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the State of Kerala and based on determination of compensation for the adjoining lands petitioner made a claim to the District Collector under S.28A of the Land Acquisition Act.
The District Collector made an award with which petitioner was not satisfied and thereon, invoking sub-S.3 of the said provision he requested a reference to the Civil Court for adjudication of his claim.
Accordingly, reference was made and learned Sub Judge, Payyannur took the reference and after hearing parties, passed a common judgment. Petitioner thought that there was error apparent on the face of the record in the common judgment in that certain statutory benefits which he is otherwise entitled to get have not been considered by the learned Sub Judge.
Thereon, petitioner filed applications (in both the cases) for review of the common judgment under R.1 O.47 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The Law Officer who appeared for the respondents did not file counter and conceded to the claim of petitioner (in the applications for review).
Learned Sub Judge was satisfied of the need for review and accordingly, allowed the applications by separate orders. Pursuant to the order granting review, nothing transpired from the learned Sub Judge and it would appear that in the meantime the officer who granted review was transferred.
Before the new Sub Judge, petitioner filed applications purporting to be under S.151 and S.152 of the Code. Those applications were dismissed. The said orders are under challenge in these proceedings.
Learned counsel for petitioner contended that when the Court has committed a mistake, it is not necessary that party should have reminded the Court of the necessity to correct the mistake.
# Reliance is placed on the decision in Keshardeo Chamria Vs. Radhakissen Chamria and Others, AIR 1953 SC 23 (paragraph 13 and 21) and Jagat Dhish Bhargava Vs. Jawahar Lal Bhargava and Others, AIR 1961 SC 832 (paragraph 13).
It is also contended by learned counsel that the applications could be treated as one under S.151 of the Code reminding the learned Sub Judge of the necessity to pass revised judgment in the reference cases. It is submitted by learned counsel that reading R.1, R.4 and R.8 of O.47 of the Code the only inference possible is that once review is allowed, the order reviewed becomes non – existent and it is the duty of the Court to pass fresh order / judgment as the case may be.
# Reliance is placed on the decision in Bhargavi Amma Vs. Sankara Panicker, 1961 KLJ 650, and in particular paragraph 7 and 8.
So far as review granted by learned Sub Judge in these cases is concerned, it is seen from the respective orders that the application for review was not objected by the Law Officer who appeared for the respondents, rather he conceded to the claim in the applications for review and being satisfied of the need for review, learned Sub Judge has granted the review.
But, in the subsequent applications petitioner requested that the common judgment and decree may be modified in the decreetal portion as prayed for.
Assuming that the relief as prayed in the said applications could not have been granted, learned Sub Judge was required to consider whether in the light of the order granting review it was necessary to pass a revised judgment.
In Jagat Dhish Bhargava Vs. Jawahar Lal Bhargava and Others it is observed that when there was a failure to draw up a decree it is not necessary that the party should have intimated the Court about drawing up of the decree as that was the function of the Court.
Advocates O. Ramachandran Nambiar, Geen T. Mathew appeared for the petitioner and T.K. Sajeev for the respondents.