Case Law Details
A. S. Raghavendra Vs Bharti Airtel Limited (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed against its judgment dated 02.04.2024 in Civil Appeal No. 5187 of 2023, wherein it had earlier allowed the appeal filed by the respondent company. The Court reiterated the settled legal position that the scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited and cannot be used as a mechanism for rehearing a case on merits. Referring to its decision in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, the Court emphasized that review is permissible only where there exists an error apparent on the face of the record and not where the alleged error requires a detailed process of reasoning.
Read SC Jugment on merit in this case: Senior Manager Not a Workman Due to Managerial & Supervisory Functions: SC
The petitioner, appearing in person, raised several grievances, including allegations that the Court had misunderstood facts, failed to consider certain judgments, misapplied the law, ignored findings of the High Court, and that the respondent had taken inconsistent stands and altered electronic records. The Court observed that these submissions effectively sought a re-examination of issues already considered and decided in the original judgment. It held that review proceedings cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise, nor can parties reargue questions previously adjudicated.
The Court noted that dissatisfaction with the outcome of litigation or a belief that injustice has occurred does not, by itself, justify reopening a concluded judgment. It stated that every adversarial proceeding inevitably results in a successful and an unsuccessful party, and mere disagreement with the decision cannot form the basis for review.
Finding no error apparent on the face of the record and no circumstance warranting exercise of review jurisdiction, the Supreme Court dismissed the review petition. The application seeking listing of the review petition in open court was rejected, the application seeking permission to appear and argue in person was dismissed, and the remaining applications seeking to place additional facts, documents, annexures, and grounds on record were also rejected. Consequently, all pending applications stood closed.
FULL TEXT OF THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT/ORDER
By way of the captioned review petition, the Petitioner seeks review of the Judgment dated 02.04.2024 passed in Civil Appeal No.5187 of 2023 titled M/s Bharti Airtel Limited v A. S. Raghavendra1. Vide the said judgment [authored by one of us (Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)], the Court allowed the appeal against the Petitioner (respondent therein) filed by the Respondent (appellant therein).
2. The legal position as regards the scope of a petition for review has been enunciated on many an occasion, including as recently as in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v State Tax Officer, (2024) 2 SCC 362. Considering that the review petition has been drafted and filed by the Petitioner-in-person, we parry over certain obvious mis-averments. For instance, Paragraph 1 of the petition states that the ‘Hon’ble Court was pleased to allow the said Civil Appeal filed by Respondent Company (hereinafter referred to as the Company) in limine’ (sic). This is factually and legally wrong inasmuch as parties were heard in extenso by this Court resulting in the Judgment dated 02.04.2024, which is a substantive pronouncement. Be that as it may.
3. A perusal of the petition would bring to light that the Petitioner feels aggrieved on various counts, inter alia, that – this Court proceeded on the basis of ‘misunderstood fact’; facts have not been ‘observed/reasoned’; the Single Judge and the Division Bench at the High Court had rightly decided the case; judgments cited by him have not been considered/followed by this Court; ‘grave injustice’ has been caused; the Respondent took varied stands at varied points of time before this Court, the Division Bench and Single Judge of the High Court and the Labour Court; the Respondent altered the electronic record; and, this Court has erred in and mis-appreciated the law etcetera.
4. Relying on a host of precedents, it was held in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal (supra) as under:
‘16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
16.3. 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”.
16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.
16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.’
5. What the Petitioner seems to have forgotten is that a review petition is not, by any stretch, a re-hearing of the matter. This Court has considered all material aspects before rendering the Judgment dated 02.04.2024. In the guise of a review, this Court cannot act/sit in appeal over the judgment of which review is sought. Moreover, when the Petitioner asserts that this Court mis-applied the law, the same would per se entail a re-examination on merits, as the law and facts of a cited case would have to be minutely studied to hold whether the same would apply in the peculiar facts of the extant case. Such exercise is clearly unwarranted herein and even otherwise, would fall well beyond the realm of a review. Findings on merits cannot be assailed in the jurisdictional confines of a review in the manner as is sought to be done by the Petitioner herein.
6. Day in and day out, this Court decides cases one way or the other. Apart from the small category of matters which are settled/amicably resolved, each case produces a winning party and a losing party. That is the nature of the adversarial system of adjudication in vogue in our nation. Merely because a party harbours a belief/notion that injustice was meted out to it, is not, by itself, sufficient reason for this Court to re-look at the underlying lis.
7. Clearly, no case for review is forthcoming. This petition is dismissed.
8. A. No.104250/2024 seeking listing of the review petition in Open Court is rejected. I.A. No.106326/2024 seeking permission to argue and appear in person is dismissed. The remaining six (6) I.A.s seek permission to file additional facts/documents/annexures and grounds. Considering that this is a review petition, we deny such permission and close these applications as well.
1. IA No. 104250/2024 – An application for listing review petition in open court, is rejected.
2. IA No. 106326/2024 – Application permission to appear and argue in person, is dismissed.
3. The review petition is dismissed in view of the signed non-reportable order.
Pending applications are closed.
Notes:
1 2024 INSC 265 | (2024) 6 SCC 418.
Author Bio
