top of page
  • Writer's pictureLLC


Supreme Court of India

Thungabhadra Industries Ltd vs The Government Of Andhra Pradesh on 22 October, 1963

The facts in relation to this matter might now be stated. As already seen, the applications for reviewing the order dated September 4, 1959, refusing the certificates were filed on November 23, 1959. During the pendency of those review applications the appellant filed, on November 30, 1959, petitions seeking special leave of this Court under Art. 136 of the Constitution but those petitions were filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed by the Rules. An application was therefore filed along with the special leave petitions seeking condonation of delay in the filing of the petitions. The petitions and the applications for condonation of delay came on together for hearing and this Court refused to condone the delay, so that the petitions for special leave never legally came on the file of this Court.

O. XLVII r. 1(1) of the Civil Procedure Code permits an application for review being filed "from a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed but from which no appeal has been preferred." In the present case, it would be seen, on the date when the application for review was filed the appellant had not filed an appeal to this Court and therefore the terms of O. XLVII r. 1(1) did not stand in the way of the petition for review being entertained. Learned Counsel for the respondent did not contest this position. Nor could we read the judgment of the High Court as rejecting the petition for review on that ground. The crucial date for determining whether or not the 'terms of O. XLVII. r.1 (1) are satisfied is the date when the application for review is filed. If on that date no appeal has been filed it is competent for the Court hearing the petition for review to dispose of the application on the merits notwithstanding the pendency of the appeal, subject only to this, that if before the application for review is finally decided the appeal itself has been disposed of, the jurisdiction of the Court hearing the review petition would come to an end.

The fact that on the earlier occasion the court held on an 'identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an "error apparent on the face of the record", for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterised as vitiated by "error apparent". A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected. but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.


bottom of page