Bebe Bai Vs. State - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/769099
SubjectCivil
CourtRajasthan High Court
Decided OnJul-16-1999
Case NumberD.B. Civil Review Petition No. 2410 of 1998
JudgeB.J. Shethna and; Mohd. Yamin, JJ.
Reported in2000(1)WLC355; 1999(1)WLN666
AppellantBebe Bai
RespondentState
Advocates:Mr. Goyal
DispositionPetition dismissed
Excerpt:
civil procedure code, 1908 - section 114--review--scope--only error apparent on the face of the record can be corrected in review--error which is not self-evident and detectable only on a process of reasoning cannot be corrected in review petition--a review petition cannot be allowed to be used as an appeal in disguise. ;review petition dismissed - - law on this point is very clear and well settled.b.j. shethna, j.1. this bench is specially assembled today for this type of cases. the petitioner is an old lady of nearly aged 67 years. this review petition is under defects. there are five defects. mr. goyal learned counsel for the petitioner assures this court that the defects will be removed within two weeks from today. on that condition shri goyal was heard on review petition.2. the attempt of mr. goyal was to argue the matter as if it is an appeal against our own judgment. law on this point is very clear and well settled.3. the order can be highly erroneous, illegal or wrong. but that is not the scope of the review petition. the judgment may be open to review inter-alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but when error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, an erroneous decision is not permissible to be reheard and corrected. the review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be used as an appeal in disguise.4. hence, this review petition is rejected.
Judgment:

B.J. Shethna, J.

1. This Bench is specially assembled today for this type of cases. The petitioner is an old lady of nearly aged 67 years. This review petition is under defects. There are five defects. Mr. Goyal learned Counsel for the petitioner assures this Court that the defects will be removed within two weeks from today. On that condition Shri Goyal was heard on review petition.

2. The attempt of Mr. Goyal was to argue the matter as if it is an appeal against our own judgment. Law on this point is very clear and well settled.

3. The order can be highly erroneous, illegal or wrong. But that is not the scope of the review petition. The judgment may be open to review inter-alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but when error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, an erroneous decision is not permissible to be reheard and corrected. The review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be used as an appeal in disguise.

4. Hence, this review petition is rejected.