Review application
Prashant
(Querist) 12 February 2012
This query is : Resolved
case is decided. Review application is pending and their is discovery of new documents which are very important to decide the case. i want decision wherein the court has allowed the application for production of document in review case
Devajyoti Barman
(Expert) 12 February 2012
In review no new appreciation of facts of evidence is allowed.
You should have gone for appeal where you had to apply for adducing additional evidence.
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 12 February 2012
I do agree with Barman. There is no provision to have additional evidence in review.
Adv.R.P.Chugh
(Expert) 13 February 2012
Discovery of New & Important piece of evidence is itself a ground of review. However the person has to discharge his burden of proof as to the fact that document or matter could not be brought before the court at the earlier stage even with reasonable diligence. If the court is convinced with respect to that - it would allow. You don't need any citation it's there in O.47/S.114 of the CPC itself.
Bharat
Raj Kumar Makkad
(Expert) 13 February 2012
Bharat ji! If I am not wrong, the provisions you told do apply in case of appeal and not with review. Please clarify.
Deepak Nair
(Expert) 13 February 2012
I too endorse the views of Mr.Rajkumar
Advocate. Arunagiri
(Expert) 13 February 2012
If it is a criminal case see s.397 of cr.p.c.
397. Calling for records to exercise powers of revision.—
(1) The High Court or any Sessions Judge may call for and examine the record of any proceeding before any inferior Criminal Court situate within its or his local jurisdiction for the purpose of satisfying itself or himself as to the correctness, legality or propriety of any finding. Sentence or order, recorded or passed, and as to the regularity of any proceedings of such inferior Court, and may, when calling for such record, direct that the execution of any sentence or order be suspended, and if the accused is in confinement, that he be released on bail or on his own bond pending the examination of the record.
Explanation.—All Magistrates, whether Executive or Judicial, and whether exercising original or appellate jurisdiction, shall be deemed to be inferior to the Sessions Judge for the purposes of this sub-section and of section 398.
(2) The powers of revision conferred by sub-section (1) shall not be exercised in relation to any interlocutory order passed in any appeal, inquiry, trial or other proceeding.
(3) If an application under this section has been made by any person either to the High Court or to the Sessions Judge, no further application by the same person shall be entertained by the other of them.
Comments
(i) When any revision in High Court is dismissed on the ground of limitation High Court can exercise power of revision suo moto under section 397; Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Girdhari Lal Sapru, AIR 1981 SC 1169: (1981) Cr LJ 632: (1981) 2 SCC 758: (1981) SCC (Cr) 598.
(ii) Where both Sessions Judge and High Court having concurrent powers, second revision would not be competent under section 397 (3); Asghar Khan v. State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1981 SC 1697: (1981) Cr LR SC 481.
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 13 February 2012
am little differ from our experts., who are saying there is no provision for additional evidences..
there is a cpc provision for "production of additional evidence in appellate court"
please see ORDER 41., RULE 27 of CPC..
there is mentioned as "appellate court.," not as in "appeal"
-tom-
M/s. Y-not legal services
(Expert) 13 February 2012
Madras High Court
Indian Kanoon - http://indiankanoon.org/doc/8249318/
Madras High Court
Jagadeesan vs T. Kriupakaran on 23 January, 2012
Dated 23.01.2012
Coram:
The Honourable Mr. Justice R.S.RAMANATHAN
C.R.P.(NPD) No.2177, 2178 and 2179 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008 in C.R.P.(NPD) No.2177 of 2008
Jagadeesan
... Revision Petitioner
in all the CRPs.
..Vs...
1. T. Kriupakaran
2. Kalaiarasan
3. Jayakumar
4. Dhyalan
... Respondents
in all the CRPs.
Prayer in C.R.P.No.2177 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order and Decreetal Order dated 10.4.2008 made in I.A.No.45 of 2007 in A.S.No.21 of 2007 on the file of Principal District Judge Corut, Vellore. Prayer in C.R.P.No.2178 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order and Decreetal Order dated 10.4.2008 made in I.A.No.30 of 2007 in A.S.No.21 of 2007 on the file of Principal District Judge Corut, Vellore.
Prayer in C.R.P.No.2179 of 2008:
Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against the Order and Decreetal Order dated 10.4.2008 made in I.A.No.32 of 2007 in A.S.No.21 of 2007 on the file of Principal District Judge Corut, Vellore. For Petitioner
in all the C.RPs. ... Mr. A.Anbarasan for
Mr. T.R.Rajaraman
For Respondents
in all the C.RPs. ... Mr. R.Margabandh
O R D E R
The appellant in A.S.No.21 of 2007 on the file of the Principal District Court, Vellore is the revision petitioner in these revisions.
2. The appellant filed I.A.No.30 of 2007 in A.S.No.21 of 2007 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., to receive certain documents as additional evidence and also filed I.A.No.32 of 2007 under Order 6 Rule 17 of CPC and also filed I.A.No.45 of 2007 under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., to adduce the additional evidence.
3. The learned appellate Judge dismissed I.A.Nos.30 of 2007 and 45 of 2007 by passing a reasoned order and dismissed I.A.No.32 of 2007 stating that having regard to the dismissal of other applications, the amendment application is also dismissed. Against the same, these revisions are filed.
4. The learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the lower appellate Court without properly appreciating the provision of Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., and the nature of documents adduced by the revision petitioner as additional evidence and reasons stated in the affidavit for non-production of those documents during trial erred in dismissing the applications.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitions filed by the revision petitioner under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., is not at all maintainable and the revision petitioner has not satisfied the conditions laid down under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., and hence the order of the lower appellate Court is perfectly valid and also relied upon the Judgement reported in AIR 1969 Supreme Court 101 (S.Rajagopal Vs. C.M.Armugam and others) and AIR 2001 SC 134 (Mahavir Sing and others Vs. Naresh Chandra and another).
6. In my opinion, the lower appellate Court has committed an error in dismissing of I.A.Nos.30 and 45 of 2007 filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., independently without deciding the appeal on merits. It has been laid down by our High Court in the Judgements reported in 1994 (2) Law Weekly 376 (M.Ayyaswami and another Vs. S.P.Ganesan and another), 2003 (3) Law Weekly 547 (Thamburaja and another Vs. Kanakasabai Padayachi) and 1998 (3) Law Weekly 234 that the lower appellate Court shall consider the application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC., along with the appeal and that application cannot be tried separately without hearing the appeal on merits. In this regard, the Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in AIR 1997 Supreme Court 3572 (Gurdev Singh and otehrs Vs. Mehnga Ram and another) is relevant wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as follows: " The grievance of the appellants before us is that in an appeal filed by them before the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur, in an application under Order XLI, Rule 27(b), Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) the learned Additional District Judge at the final eharing of the appeal wrongly felt that additional evidence was required to produce as requested by the appellants by way of examination of a heandwriting expert. The High Court in the impugned order exercising jurisdiction under Section 115 C.P.C., took the view that the order of the appellate Court could not be sustained. In our view the approach of the High Court in revision at that interim stage when the appeal was pending for final hearing before the learned Additional District Judge was not justified and the High Court should not have interfered with the order which was within the jurisdiction of the Appellate Court. The reason is obvious. The Appellate Court hearing the matter finally could exercise jurisdiction one way or the other under Order XLI, Rule 27 specially clause (b). If the order was wrong on merits, it would always be open for the respondent to challenge the same in accordance with law if an occasion arises to carry the matter in Second Appeal, after an appellate decree is passed. But at this interim stage, the High Court should not have felt itself convinced that the order was without jurisdiction. Only on this short question, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy involved and on the legality of the contentions advanced by both the learned Counsel for the parties regarding additional evidence, we allow this appeal, set aside the order of the High Court. In the result, the Additional District Judge, Ferozepur shall now decide the appeal on its own merits. We make it clear that the order of the learned Additional District Judge, Ferozepur dated 12.12.1995 shall now be complied with, subject to the liberty reserved to the respondent as aforesaid."
7. Therefore, the lower appellate Court has commiteed a serious error in dismissing the applications filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of C.P.C., independently before hearing the appeal. Hence, the orders of the lower appellate Court are set aside and the lower appellate Court is directed to consider and pass orders in I.A.Nos.30 and 45 of 2007 on merits along with the appeal and the lower appellate Court is also directed to consider and pass order in I.A.No.32 of 2007 on merits along with the appeal. With the above direction, the Civil Reivion Petitions are allowed. No costs. Consequently, the connected Miscellaneous petition is closed. 23.01.2012 Index: Yes/No.
Internet: Yes/No.
kr.
To
1. The District Munsif,
District Munsif Court,
Vellore.
2. The Principal District Judge,
Principal District Court,
Vellore.
R.S.RAMANATHAN,J.
kr.
C.R.P.(NPD)Nos.2177 to 2179 of 2008
and
M.P.No.1 of 2008
23.01.2012
Adv.R.P.Chugh
(Expert) 13 February 2012
Ld. Makkad Sir,
These provisions that i've mentioned have nothing to do with an appeal. These are two different remedies - review is an exception to the basic principle that a court which has once decided becomes functus officio - in review the very court has a look again - only on strict compliance of some grounds - one of which is - discovery of new evidence.
The querist it seems asks "whether he can adduce new evidence/documents" I am sure he can - that is what review is meant for - provided he satisfies the conditions therein.
In appeal also - additional evidence in certain circumstances is admissible if conditions of O.41 R 27 are fulfilled.
First appeal carries with itself rehaering on facts as well as law as a matter of right.
In second appeal also - Facts are not entirely out of question and S.103 is there to enable re-appreciation of facts in certain cases.
