K.S Jhaveri, J.:— Heard. In view of the averments made in the application, the delay caused in filing the MCA is required to be condoned. Accordingly, delay is condoned. Application is allowed accordingly.
ORDER IN MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION
2. Rule. Mr. Karnavat, learned advocate appearing for the respondent has waived service of Rule. With consent of learned advocates application is taken up for final decision today.
3. This application is filed seeking review of the judgement and order dated 23.07.2015 passed in First Appeal No. 189 of 2005.
4. Heard. In view of the averments made in the application and as a result of hearing learned advocates for both the sides, we are of the opinion that this application cannot be entertained at this stage inasmuch as the points raised in the present application have been raised subsequently. The contentions taken in the present application were not raised during the hearing of the appeal.
5. In this regard it shall be relevant to peruse Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Code’) which reads as under:
“1. Application for review of judgment.- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved,-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(C) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.
Explanation: The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.”
6. It is well settled law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code. The review petition has to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. An error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. The limitation of powers of courts under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code is similar to the jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking review of the orders under Article 226.
7. Review application cannot form second innings in the form or raising fresh arguments and contentions which were not raised at the time of hearing of appeal. The Apex Court in a plethora of decisions has observed that the Court cannot consider fresh contentions in review application, which, though available, were not urged at the time of hearing of the main petition/appeal.
8. Thus, on an overall consideration of the facts, circumstances and submissions by learned counsel for the applicant and for the foregoing reasons, it has to be held that the applicant has failed to make out a case that there is any error apparent on the face of the judgment and order/record and that the request and the application fall within the circumstances contemplated under Order 47 of the Code. Hence, the application for review is rejected. Rule is discharged.