Skip to content


Manoharlal Verma Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCivil
CourtMadhya Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMisc. Civil Case No. 91 of 1968
Judge
Reported inAIR1970MP131; 1970MPLJ51
ActsCode of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 114 and 151 - Order 47, Rule 5; Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules - Rules 3 and 4
AppellantManoharlal Verma
RespondentState of Madhya Pradesh and ors.
Appellant AdvocateRam Kumar Verma, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateA.R. Choube, Adv.
Cases ReferredChhajju Ram v. Neki
Excerpt:
- .....the principles underlying some of the provisions of the code have been applied by analogy. that being so, the provisions of order 47, rule 5 cannot be invoked in derogation of rules 3 and 4 of this court. it is obvious that, in this case, the order as such is not covered by order 47, rule 5. that being so, the application for review must be heard by a bench of two judges as provided by rule 3, even if the matter is regarded as one to which rule 3 does not apply, it must still be heard by a bench of two judges as provided by rule 4, more particularly for the reason that my lord the chief justice has so directed and constituted this bench.4. the case will now be posted in the usual course for hearing the parties on merits.
Judgment:

Pandey, J.

1. This is an application for review of a final order passed by a Division Bench, of this Court in Miscellaneous Petition No. 180 of 1965 dated January 10, 1968, to which one of us (Pandey, J.) was a party. The other Judge, Dixit C. J., has now retired. Theprecise question for consideration in this situation is whether, if an application for review lies, it should be heard by Pandey, J. sitting singly or by a Division Bench of this Court or by a still larger Bench.

2. The general law is that, in judicial and quasi-judicial proceedings, there is, apart from, the statute, no inherent power of review and, therefore, when the statute does not provide for review, the power of review cannot be assumed to exist: Raja-ram V. Rani Jamit Kunwar Devi, 1961 MPLJ 944; Deorao Krishnarao Jadhao V. Board of Revenue, Misc. Petn. No. 10 of 1962, D/-5-12-62 (reported in 1963 Jab LJ 88) and Thakur Himmatsingh v. Board of Revenue, 1966 MPLJ 170 = (AIR 1966 Madh Pra 43 (FB)). There was a difference of opinion on the question whether an order passed by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution could be reviewed in the absence of any provision authorising it so to do. However, in Shivdeo Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909 the Supreme Court observed that the power of review to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors inhered in every Court of plenary jurisdiction and that there was nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising it. Thus the point is no longer open to doubt or debate.

3. The Rules framed by this Court for regulating its proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution do not provide for review of any order passed in those proceedings. However, Rules 3 and 4 of Chapter I of the Rules of this Court provide as follows:

'3. In cases not provided for by Order XLVII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, an application for a review of a decree or order shall be heard:--

(a) if the decree or order, review of which is applied for, is passed by a Judge alone, by a Bench of two Judges;

(b) if the said decree or order was passed by a Bench of two or more Judges, by a Bench consisting of as many Judges as the Bench of whose decree or order review is applied for.

4. Save as provided by law or by these rules or by special orders of the Chief Justice, all matters shall be heard and disposed of by a Bench of two Judges.'

It is true that when such a situation arises in a case covered by Order 47, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the application for review must be heard and disposed of by the remaining Judge sitting alone: Chhajju Ram v. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112. But Order 47, Rule 5 does not proprio vigore apply to proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution, to which the principles underlying some of the provisions of the Code have been applied by analogy. That being so, the provisions of Order 47, Rule 5 cannot be invoked in derogation of Rules 3 and 4 of this Court. It is obvious that, in this case, the order as such is not covered by Order 47, Rule 5. That being so, the application for review must be heard by a Bench of two Judges as provided by Rule 3, Even if the matter is regarded as one to which Rule 3 does not apply, it must still be heard by a Bench of two Judges as provided by Rule 4, more particularly for the reason that my Lord the Chief Justice has so directed and constituted this Bench.

4. The case will now be posted in the usual course for hearing the parties on merits.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //