In an order passed recently, the Madras High Court reiterated that a review petition cannot be entertained as if it were an appeal, where there persists a dispute on facts..Pertinent observations in this regard were made by a Division Bench of Justices Huluvadi G Ramesh and S Vaidyanathan, while dismissing a review petition filed against the order passed in a writ appeal..The case related to claims that a woman had been wrongly divorced by her husband on the basis of forged documents and collusion between a Qazi and the husband. While a criminal case was pending disposal before the lower forum, the woman and her children had approached the Madras High Court, invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226. The petitioners had prayed for the grant of damages for injury suffered on account of the wrongful dissolution of marriage..An appeal was filed before the Division Bench of the High Court after the case was dismissed by the Single Judge. Upholding the dismissal, the Division Bench on appeal agreed that the case was premature, given that there were criminal proceedings pending before the lower court. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred a review petition before the same Bench..The review petitioner had contended that the impugned order in the writ appeal was liable to be overturned on two primary grounds:.The Court had not taken into consideration written submissions and arguments of the petitioner, as well as the authorities cited in support of the contentions madeThe divorce in dispute was made based on a forged document and the same had led to the petitioner being deprived of her rights.The Court, however, dismissed the review petition on the primary ground that there were disputed questions of fact still pending consideration..“In this case, there are disputed questions of fact. The Apex Court, in a catena of decisions, held that when the facts are not in dispute, the Court is empowered to grant the relief. When the facts are disputed, this Court cannot delve into the same. In this case, the learned single Judge has rightly held that the criminal proceedings are pending and the rights of the writ petitioner are relegated to be renewed after conclusion of the criminal trial.”.The petitioners in this case had effectively preferred an appeal when they founded their case on submissions that were factual in nature. On the other hand, a review petition can only be entertained when there is an error apparent on the face of record. In the absence of such factors, the finality of judgments cannot be disturbed. In other words, a review petition cannot be used as another avenue for appeal, the Court held..“The basic principle to entertain a Review Application under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is to correct the errors, but not to substitute a view…..…the review cannot be treated as appeal in disguise, as the object behind review is ultimately to see that there should not be miscarriage of justice and shall do justice for the sake of justice only and review on the ground that the judgment is erroneous cannot be sustained.”.The Court made note of various authorities cited by the review petitioners in support of their case. However, given that the facts in the instant case were in dispute and/or were distinguishable from the facts in the cited precedents, the Court saw no reason to apply the same..In this context, the Court also made reference to observations made in the case Padma Sundara Rao v State of TN, where it was cautioned,.“Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case… Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases.”.Lawyers have a duty to apprise the Court with Written Submissions filed.Before parting with the case, the Court also expressed its discontent in the failure of the petitioner’s counsel to present a copy of written submissions to the Court before it passed the impugned order. One of the grounds on which the review petition had been filed was the apparent failure of the Court to take into consideration written submissions filed by the petitioners at the stage of writ appeal..The Court noted that it had asked the petitioners/appellants to file written submissions. The counsel concerned dispensed with the said direction by filing the same with the Registry and stopped short of providing copies to the Bench or the court officers before orders were passed in open court..It appeared to the Court that the counsel had deliberately omitted to inform the Court of the written submissions filed so that the same could be used to file a review petition thereafter in the event of an adverse ruling..In this context, the Court observed,.“It is the duty cast upon the lawyer to ensure that the written submissions/arguments are tagged along with the main bundle and it reaches the correct bundle. In this case, the written arguments/submissions have been filed into the Registry and not brought to the attention of the Judges by the counsel. Nothing prevented the counsel from presenting a copy of the written submissions/arguments in the open Court… .…and nothing also prevented the counsel from handing over the written submissions/arguments, after making a mention before the Division Bench, and presenting the same to the Court Officer or Stenographer.”.The Court has gone on to remark,.“The conduct of the review petitioners like the present one, makes us to think that the Court will have to ensure that the Advocates are asked not to file written submissions/arguments. If the Advocates are going to blame the Judges indirectly, this Court will not ask the parties/counsel like the one here to file written submissions/arguments. If any written submissions/arguments are filed, without the leave of the Court, then, certainly, the Court can ignore the same…”.Ultimately, the Court dismissed the review petition, holding that,.“The non-consideration of the written submissions/arguments will not be a ground for reviewing the judgment rendered by us in the Writ Appeal, more particularly, when there is no error apparent on the face of record.”.It was noted that the only remedy available to the petitioners, if aggrieved by the ruling of the Division Bench, would be to prefer a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court..Read Order below:
