- Bookmark
- Share
- CaseIQ
Tanaji Gambhire v. Union Of India & Ors.
Factual and Procedural Background
This opinion addresses the maintainability of a Review Application filed under the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Review Application challenges an order relating to compensation granted by a Tribunal. Concurrently, an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 10854 of 2016) against the same order is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010. Respondent No.9, who is the Review Applicant, has also joined the appeal and raised questions on the quantum of compensation awarded.
Legal Issues Presented
- Whether the Review Application is maintainable in light of the pendency of an appeal against the same order before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, particularly considering the exception in Sub-clause (2) of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- Whether the grounds raised by the Review Applicant and the Appellant in the appeal are common such that the exception to maintainability applies.
Arguments of the Parties
Respondent No.9's Arguments
- The exception under Sub-clause (2) of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, renders the Review Application not maintainable.
- Respondent No.9 has preferred an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the judgment and order under review.
- Respondent No.9 has joined the issues in the appeal and questioned the quantum of compensation, which should preclude a review application.
Table of Precedents Cited
No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.
Court's Reasoning and Analysis
The Court examined the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, particularly focusing on the exception in Sub-clause (2) which restricts filing a review application when an appeal is pending, except where the grounds are common to both the appellant and the review applicant. The Court found that the Appellant seeks to quash the compensation order entirely, while the Review Applicant seeks only to enhance the compensation. Since there is no commonality in the grounds raised by the two parties, the exception does not apply. Therefore, the Review Application is maintainable despite the pendency of the appeal.
Holding and Implications
The Court rejected the plea of non-maintainability of the Review Application and held that the Review Application is maintainable under the circumstances.
The direct effect of this decision is that the Review Applicant may proceed with the review despite the pending appeal. No broader precedent was established beyond the application of the exception clause in the specific factual matrix.
Issue of maintainability of the present Application has been raised in light of provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 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.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondent No.9 submits that the exception in Sub-clause 2 of Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 comes to his assistance in saying that the present Review Application is not maintainable. He points out that the Respondent No.9 has preferred an Appeal being Civil Appeal No. 10854 of 2016, against the Judgment and Order under Review before the Hon'ble Apex Court under Section 22 of the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 and raised questions about the compensation awarded in the present case. He submits that the Review Applicant being the Respondent No.9 therein has joined the issues in the said Appeal before the Hon'ble Apex Court and also questioned the quantum of compensation.
Having perused the record, we find that the Appellant is seeking quashing of the order of compensation in totality and the Review Applicant is seeking enhancement of the compensation granted by the Tribunal. We do not see any commonality in the grounds resorted to by the Applicant and Appellant in the said Appeal. Exception to Sub-clause 2 of Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, therefore, does not come to the help of Respondent No.9. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the Review Application is maintainable Plea of non-maintainability of the Review Application is rejected.
For want of time at the instance of the Respondents.
Alert