Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLVII r.1 – Application for review of judgment – Review petitions – In Govt. of NCT of Delhi v. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited, split verdict by two Hon’ble judges – Hon’ble Judge presiding over the Bench ruled in favour of maintainability of the review petitions whereas the Hon’ble companion Judge on the Bench held that the review petitions were not maintainable – In view of difference of opinion, the review petitions referred to larger Bench to resolve which of the two views on maintainability of the review petitions is the correct view – Issue arose as regards if the review petitioners, on the basis of the pleadings in the review petitions, could be considered persons aggrieved; whether the last sentence of paragraph 217 of Shailendra [3-Judge] case grants ‘liberty’ to any party to seek a review of Pune Municipal Corporation case; did such ‘liberty’ survive after the decision in Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case; can the review petitions be held to be maintainable, giving due regard to the Explanation in Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC vis-à-vis Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case and if no, do the review petitions still deserve to be entertained on the other grounds urged therein; and are the miscellaneous applications maintainable:

Held: No review is available upon a change or reversal of a proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger Bench of this Court overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the judgment/order under review was based – Notwithstanding the fact that Pune Municipal Corporation case has since been wiped out of existence, the said decision being the law of the land when the Civil Appeals/Special Leave Petitions were finally decided, the subsequent overruling of such decision and even its recall, for that matter, would not afford a ground for review within the parameters of Ord. XLVII – Opinion expressed by the Hon’ble companion Judge on the said Division Bench is concurred with and this Court is not in agreement with the Hon’ble presiding Judge – Judgments and orders under review were right on the dates they were rendered, the review petitioners are not considered as persons aggrieved who can maintain a review petition citing either Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] and Shailendra [3-Judge] – However, it is held that the review petitioners can yet be considered persons aggrieved – Last sentence of paragraph 217 of Shailendra [3-Judge] case does not grant ‘liberty’ to any party to seek a review of Pune Municipal Corporation’s case – Review petitions cannot be held to be maintainable, giving due regard to the Explanation in r. 1 of Ord. XLVII vis-à-vis Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case – Review petitions do not deserve to be entertained on the other grounds urged – Miscellaneous applications not maintainable – Under the circumstances, dismissal of the RPs and miscellaneous applications would have been logical – However, having regard to the disclosures made in course of progress of other proceedings before this Court, which followed immediately after judgment on the Review Petitions and miscellaneous applications was reserved, taking an overall and holistic view of the matter and in the light of the larger public interest certain directions issued – Time limit for initiation of fresh acquisition proceedings in terms of the provisions contained in s. 24(2) of the 2013 Act is extended by a year whereupon compensation to the affected landowners may be paid in accordance with law – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. [Paras 104, 117, 118, 119, 121]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLVII r.1 – Review – Application for review of judgment – Review petitioners, on the basis of the pleadings in the review petitions, if could be considered persons aggrieved:

Held: In the eyes of an unsuspecting person, obviously the review petitioners are persons aggrieved because of declaration of land acquisition proceedings initiated by them as deemed to have lapsed – However, the dates on which the High Court had disposed of the writ petitions by declaring that the land acquisition proceedings were deemed to have lapsed, the law laid down by a binding authority-Pune Municipal Corporation’ case was holding the field at the relevant time and which the High Court applied in reaching its conclusions – This Court too had dismissed the Civil Appeals and the Special Leave Petitions bearing in mind that the issue raised was no longer res integra in view of Pune Municipal Corporation’s case – Since the judgments and orders under review were right on the dates they were rendered, the review petitioners could not be considered as persons aggrieved who could maintain a review petition citing either Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] and Shailendra [3-Judge] case – However, the review petitioners can yet be considered persons aggrieved. [Paras 107, 108]

Review – Review petitions – Liberty to apply for Review – Last sentence of paragraph 217 of Shailendra [3-Judge] case, if grants ‘liberty’ to any party to seek a review of Pune Municipal Corporation’ case – Such ‘liberty’ if, survived after the decision in Manoharlal [5- Judge, lapse] case – Plea of the review petitioners that paragraph 217 of Shailendra [3-Judge] case irrespective of anything else, did grant them ‘liberty’ to apply for review, that availing such ‘liberty’ granted by this Court the Review Petitions were filed, and thus, the Review Petitions maintainable –

Held: Decision in Shailendra [3-Judge] case cannot come to the rescue of the review petitioners – Majority in Shailendra [3-Judge] case intended that if review petitions were pending on the date of the decision, seeking review of decisions which had been rendered relying on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case, such review petitions could be entertained and considered on the basis of the discussion in Shailendra [3-Judge] case declaring Pune Municipal Corporation’s case per incuriam and the decisions reviewed; nothing more, nothing less – Majority in Shailendra [3-Judge] case could not have and did, in fact, give a carte blanche to the land acquiring authorities to apply for review of decisions already made by courts relying on the decision in Pune Municipal Corporation case, even though the remedy of appeal or review had not been pursued earlier and without the successful landowners being on record before the court – Plea of review petitioners if accepted, would result in utter chaos and confusion in the justice delivery system apart from disturbing the principle of finality of judicial decisions – Phrase “open to be reviewed in appropriate cases” occurring in paragraph 217 of the decision in Shailendra [3-Judge] case could not have been perceived by the review petitioners as opening up an avenue for them to apply for review – Assuming arguendo that the submission touching ‘liberty’ granted by Shailendra [3-Judge] case is correct, the plinth thereof crumbles by reason of paragraph 365 of Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case and, thus, is rendered non-existent. [Paras 78, 80, 83]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLVII r.1 Explanation – Review – Application for review of judgment – Maintainability of the review peitions, giving due regard to the Explanation in r. 1 of Order XLVII, CPC vis-à-vis Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case:

Held: An alternative remedy, carved out by r. 1 of Ord. XLVII, already exists which the review petitioners have pursued – Recourse to s. 151, CPC, would not be available, the object of which is to supplement and not replace the remedies provided under the CPC – Attempt of the review petitioners has been to draw inspiration from the ground “any other sufficient reason” appearing in r. 1 – No review is available upon a change or reversal of a proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger Bench of this Court overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the judgment/order under review was based – Notwithstanding the fact that Pune Municipal Corporation’s case has since been wiped out of existence, the said decision being the law of the land when the Civil Appeals/Special Leave Petitions were finally decided, the subsequent overruling of such decision and even its recall, for that matter, would not afford a ground for review within the parameters of Ord. XLVII – Plea that an aggrieved party can seek a review “for any other sufficient reason” and overruling of Pune Municipal Corporation’s case followed by recall thereof brings the claims of the review petitioners within the coverage of this particular ground cannot be accepted – Thus, review petition not maintainable. [Para 99, 100, 104-105]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLVII r.1 explanation – Review – Application for review of judgment – Review petitions not held to be maintainable, giving due regard to the explanation in r. 1 of Ord. XLVII vis-à-vis Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case – Review petitions if could be entertained on the other grounds urged therein:

Held: Review petitions include under the caption ‘grounds’ reference to points which, according to the review petitioners, are sufficient to review the judgments/orders under review, apart from reference to the so-called ‘liberty’ granted by this Court vide Shailendra [3-Judge] case – ‘Grounds’ in each of the review petitions are factual in nature – In fact, the review petitioners have raised ‘Grounds’ without even averring what was pleaded in their counter affidavits filed before the High Court and what were the defences raised which, because of non-consideration by this Court, could be said to amount to an error apparent on the face of the record – Review petitions are silent as to on which specific ground referrable to r. 1 of Order XLVII the review has been asked for – Even then, having considered such ‘Ground’, the judgments/ orders under review do not suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record – Review petitions could not be entertained on the other grounds urged therein. [Paras 109-111]

Miscellaneous applications – Maintainability – Miscellaneous applications seeking recall of certain orders of this Court, whereby some of the land acquisition proceedings were declared to have lapsed:

Held: Miscellaneous applications not maintainable – Said applications filed in the form of miscellaneous applications, were in essence akin to the review petitions as they also seek reconsideration of this Court’s orders – Since these miscellaneous applications also rely on Manoharlal [5-Judge, lapse] case as a ground for review/reconsideration of the previous orders, they are squarely covered by the analysis in this judgment – If it is held otherwise, the review petitioners would be permitting to do something indirectly that is seeking review through miscellaneous applications, which they could not have done directly i.e., seeking review through review petitions – This would open the law to being misused and lead to by-passing the legislative intent behind introduction of Explanation 1 to Rule 1 of Order XLVII, CPC which cannot be permitted by the Court – This does not imply an absolute prohibition against filing of miscellaneous applications seeking ‘clarification,’ ‘modification,’ or ‘recall’ following the initial disposal of a matter – Only the Court need to exercise prudence and ascertain whether such an application is, in substance, in the nature of a review petition – In case such an application is found to be nothing but a disguised version of a review petition, it ought to be treated in similar manner a review petition is treated. [Paras 113, 116]

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XLVII r.1 explanation – Review – Application for review of judgment – Maintainability of the Review peitions:

Held: Ord. XLVII does not authorize a review of a decree, which was right, on the happening of some subsequent event – In case of discovery of a new or important matter or evidence, such matter or evidence has to be one which existed at the time when the decree or order under review was passed or made – Resultantly, what the statute prohibits, cannot be permitted by the Court – If permitted, the Court would be acting contrary to law – What the Parliament has done, the Court cannot undo unless the law enacted by the Parliament is declared ultra vires – Vires of the Explanation not being under challenge during more than four decades of its existence, it is not for the Court to ignore the Explanation. [Paras 89, 90]

Constitution of India – Arts. 137 and 145 – Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – Ord. XLVII r.1 – Review – Review jurisdiction – Exercise of, by the Supreme Court:

Held: Power of the Supreme Court to review its own judgment and/or order has its genesis in Arts. 137 and 145 of the Constitution read with Ord. XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules, 2013 – r. 1 of Ord. XLVII of the Rules lays down that no application for review in a civil proceeding would be entertained by this Court except on the ground mentioned in r. 1 Ord. XLVII CPC – Review in civil proceedings is governed by s. 114 CPC read with Ord. XLVII thereof – First and foremost condition that is required to be satisfied by a party to invoke the review jurisdiction of the court, whose order or decree, as the case may be, is sought to be reviewed, is that the said party must be someone who is aggrieved by the order/decree – Meaning of words “person aggrieved” has to be ascertained with reference to the purpose and provisions of the statute – In one sense, the said words could correspond to the requirement of ‘locus standi’ in relation to judicial remedies – Need to ascertain the ‘locus standi’ of a review petitioner could arise, if he is not a party to the proceedings but claims the order or decree to have adversely affected his interest – In terms of Ord. XLVII of the 2013 Rules read with Ord. XLVII, CPC, a petition for review at the instance of a third party to the proceedings too is maintainable, the quintessence being that he must be aggrieved by a judgment/ order passed by this Court – Normally, in the context of r. 1 of Ord. XLVII, CPC, it is that person (being a party to the proceedings) suffering an adverse order and/or decree who, feeling aggrieved thereby, usually seeks a review of the order/decree on any of the grounds outlined therein – Circumstances where a review would lie are spelt out in clauses (a) to (c) but Ord. XVLII does not end with the circumstances – Review power u/s. 114 read with Order XLVII, CPC is available to be exercised, subject to fulfilment of the conditions, on setting up by the review petitioner any of the following grounds: discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or any other sufficient reason. [Paras 34, 38, 39]

Constitution of India – Art. 142 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – ss. 114, 151, Order XLVII – Inherent powers – Review power – Distinction:

Held: Constitutional courts have inherent powers and this Court is also vested by Art. 142 of the Constitution with powers to pass such decree or make such order as is necessary to do complete justice in any cause or matter pending before it – Superior court, in exercise of its inherent power, is authorized to do justice that the cause before it demands – Upon satisfaction being reached by a court that a mistake has been committed by it, which is gross and palpable, it is not the law that the mistake has to be corrected by exercising the power of review only – Such power can be exercised, only if the person aggrieved by the order or decree applies therefor – On its terms, s. 114 CPC rw Ord. XLVII thereof does not conceive of a suo motu power of review being exercised by the court –Words “court on its own motion” are absent in the statutory provision – However, once the court is satisfied that a mistake committed by it needs to be rectified, it is always open to exercise the inherent powers to achieve the desired result – An order of court, be it judicial or administrative which is made per incuriam or in violation of certain Constitutional limitations or in derogation of principles of natural justice can always be remedied by the court ex debito justitiae – It can do so in exercise of its inherent jurisdiction in any proceeding pending before it without insisting on the formalities of a review application – To own up the mistake when judicial satisfaction is reached does not militate against its status or authority; perhaps, it would enhance both – On the other hand, when it involves invocation of the power of review and such power is traceable in a statute, which also has provisions regulating the exercise of the review power, it has to be held that the power of review is not an inherent power – If a power of review is statutorily conferred, it would be inappropriate, nay incompetent, for the court exercising review power to travel beyond the contours of the provision conferring the very power – Statutorily conferred power to review is not to be confused with the inherent power of the court to recall any order – Said power inheres in every court to prevent miscarriage of justice or when a fraud has been committed on court or to correct grave and palpable errors – Furthermore, inherent powers of the court u/s. 151, CPC cannot be invoked if there exists a remedy made available by the CPC itself. [Para 92, 94, 96]

Precedents – Decision when, per incuriam – Shailendra [3-Judge] case, declaring Pune Municipal Corporation’ case per incuriam – Correctness:

Held: Shailendra [3-Judge] case declared Pune Municipal Corporation [3-Judge] case per incuriam without having the benefit of the caution sounded by the Constitution Bench in Vikramjit Singh’s case and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community’s case though it considered in excess of 250 decisions – There is absolutely no scope for a Bench of three-Hon’ble Judges to declare a previous decision of a Bench of co-equal strength per incuriam – Shailendra [3-Judge] case, at the highest, could have doubted Pune Municipal Corporation case and referred it for decision by a yet larger Bench but could not have, by any stretch of reasoning, declared it per incuriam. [Para 74]

Precedents – Decision when, per incuriam – Shailendra [3-Judge] case, if per incuriam:

Held: There is absolutely no scope for a Bench of three-Hon’ble Judges to declare a previous decision of a Bench of co-equal strength per incuriam – Shailendra [3-Judge] case declared Pune Municipal Corporation [3-Judge]’s case per incuriam without having the benefit of the caution sounded by the Constitution Bench in Vikramjit Singh’s case and Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community’s case – Shailendra [3-Judge] case, at the highest, could have doubted Pune Municipal Corporation case and referred it for decision by a yet larger Bench but could not have, by any stretch of reasoning, declared it per incuriam – Same logic applicable to this Bench too – Following, the Central Board of Dawoodi Bohra Community’s case, and also having regard to the sense of judicial discipline and propriety, this Court restrains itself from declaring Shailendra [3-Judge] case as per incuriam notwithstanding the firm conviction in this behalf – Shailendra [3-Judge] case is not held to be per incuriam. [Para 74]

Precedent – Precedent of a previous Bench – Maintenance of judicial discipline and propriety:

Held: Supreme Court of India, a revered institution, is one Court which operates through separate Benches owing to administrative exigency and practical expedience – These Benches are essential to efficiently manage the diverse and voluminous cases that come before the Court and to discharge the solemn judicial duty for which the Court exists – Each Bench speaks for the Court as a whole, contributing to the intricate symphony of justice that defines the Supreme Court of India – Thus, the need arises for a Bench to be careful, cautious, and circumspect while being critical of a precedent of a previous Bench – Every Bench is supposed to bear in mind two overriding considerations – First is that of deference to the views expressed by a Bench in a primary decision and the other is maintaining judicial discipline and propriety if, upon threadbare consideration, it is found difficult to assent to the justification for such primary decision – In such an eventuality, dignity and decency would demand disagreement voiced by the subsequent Bench and reference of the matter to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for constitution of a larger Bench which is not a critical observations and adverse comments in respect of the primary decision rendered by a coordinate Bench. [Paras 69, 70]

Judicial Discipline – Maintenance of:

Held: If a judgment and/or order has attained finality because a judicial remedy is either not available in law or even if available, such remedy has been lost, it is not open for a higher court of law by a judicial fiat either to create a remedy for the party on the losing side to pursue or to grant liberty to him to pursue an otherwise available remedy which by passage of time might have been lost-behind the back of a party who would obviously be se- riously affected if he were compelled to contest the proceedings once again – Such an act of court would be without the authority of law. [Para 81]