Vipul Ganda is an Independent Litigation Counsel with over 14 years of experience and a proven track record in Litigation and Dispute Resolution.
Abhijit Mishra Versus Union of India and Ors.
Court / Forum : Delhi High Court Citation : WP(C) 4695/2020 Coram : Justice D.N. Patel and Justice Prateek Jalan Subject : Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) Date of Decision : 2020-08-06
The original writ petition was preferredPIL was preferred by the party in-person for original writ petition was filed by the petitioner as a PIL for the benefit of advocates i.e. including Advocates in the definition of the word “professional” under the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development Act, 2006. The Hon’ble High Court was of the view that the advocates are capable of filing their own litigation, if they wish to do so and therefore, dismissed the writ petition as a PIL vide order dated July 29, 2020.
This present Review Petition has been preferred by the original writ petitioner seeking review of the order passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.4695/2020.
The Review Applicant argued that there are various previous orders wherein notices have been issued by the Hon’ble High Court in matters pertaining to creation of the post of Advocate General in Delhi, selection process for the students etc.
Whether the Hon’ble Delhi High Court can review the order passed on July 29, 2020 under Order 47, Rule 1?
The Hon’ble High Court relying upon law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, [(1995) 1 SCC 170 8] and Haryana State Industrial Development Corporation Ltd. vs. Mawasi [(2012) 7 SCC 200] held that in exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.
The court further observed that under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
The Hon’ble High Court in view of the aforesaid reasons and judicial pronouncements, dismissed the review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
Vipul Ganda is a Delhi based Advocate practicing largely at the Delhi High Court. His practice focus is Dispute Resolution and Litigation and his practice areas include Arbitration, Commercial, Civil, Constitutional, Corporate and Criminal Litigation.