Patna High Court
Sanjay KumarversusThe Employees State Insurance Corporation
- Decided
- Disposal
- DISMISSED
Holding
The review petition is dismissed as there is no error apparent on the face of the record.
Summary
The petition filed by Sanjay Kumar sought a review of the Division Bench order dated 03‑02‑2020 in CWJC No.2147 of 2020 against the Employees State Insurance Corporation. The petitioner contended that the earlier order contained a patent error warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. The Court examined the scope of review, relying on Supreme Court decisions such as Sasi (Dead) v. Aravindakshan Nair and Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. State of A.P., which limit review to errors apparent on the face of the record and prohibit a review from being an appeal in disguise. Applying these principles, the Court found no such patent error in the impugned order. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed and any pending applications were ordered to stand disposed.
Issues considered
- Whether the order dated 03‑02‑2020 can be reviewed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
- Whether there exists an error apparent on the face of the record justifying such a review.
Legislation cited
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order 47 Rule 1
Subjects
- review jurisdiction
- error apparent on the face of the record
- Order 47 CPC
- civil writ jurisdiction
- Supreme Court precedent
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.252 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2147 of 2020
======================================================
Sanjay Kumar son of Late Kishori Choudhary, Resident of village- Paithana,
P.O.- Bhagan Bigha, P.S. Bena, District- Nalanda, Biharsharif.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The Employees State Insurance Corporation through the Director General,
Employees State Insurance Corporation, Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Road,
New Delhi- 110002.
2. The Joint Director (Recruitment), Employees State Insurance Corporation,
Panchdeep Bhawan, CIG Road, New Delhi- 110002.
3. The Additional Commissioner and the Regional Director, Employees State
Insurance Corporation, Regional Chief, Panchdeep Bhawan, Ashram Road,
Ahmedabad.
4. The Regional Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional
Officer, Panchadeep Bhawan, Ashram Road, Ahmadabad (Gujarat)- 380014.
5. The Deputy Director, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Regional
Officer, Panchadeep Bhawan, Ashram Road, Ahmadabad (Gujarat)- 380014.
6. The Joint Director I/C, Employees State Insurance Corporation, Sub-
Regional Office, ESI Hospital Campus, Civil Char Rasta, Surat, Gujarat.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sanjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Anand Kumar Ojha, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Sudhir Kumar Bijpuria, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH)
2 09-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present review application has been filed
seeking review of the order dated 03.02.2020 passed by a
Division Bench of this Court in CWJC No. 2147 of 2020.
3. The scope of review has been explained by the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.252 of 2024(2) dt.09-02-2026
2/3
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sasi (Dead) vs.
Aravindakshan Nair reported in (2017) 4 SCC 692 wherein the
Court has observed as under:-
“6. The grounds enumerated therein are specific. The
principles for interference in exercise of review
jurisdiction are well settled. The Court passing the order
is entitled to review the order, if any of the grounds
specified in the aforesaid provision are satisfied.
7. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. State. of A.P. (AIR
1964 SC 1372), the Court while dealing with the scope
of review had opined:-
“11. What, however, we are now concerned with is
whether the statement in the order of September
1959 that the case did not involve any substantial
question of law is an “error apparent on the face of
the record’. 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
characterized 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.”
8. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997) 8 SCC 715,
the Court after referring to Thungabhadra Industries
Ltd. (supra), Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury (1995) 1 SCC 170 and Aribam Tuleshwar
Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (1979) 4 SCC 389 ,
held thus:-
“9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment
may be open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the
record. 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 the record justifying the court to exercise its
Patna High Court C. REV. No.252 of 2024(2) dt.09-02-2026
3/3
power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In
exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review
petition, it must be remembered has a limited
purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal
in disguise”.
9. The aforesaid authorities clearly spell out the nature,
scope and ambit of power to be exercised. The error has
to be self- evident and is not to be found out by a process
of reasoning. We have adverted to the aforesaid aspects
only to highlight the nature of review proceedings.”
4. In view of the aforesaid legal position, a review can
be entertained only when there is an error apparent on the face
of the record and not for re-hearing the matter as an appeal.
5. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the
present case, this Court finds that there is no error apparent on
the face of the record warranting review or recall of the order
dated 03.02.2020.
6. Accordingly, the present review application is
dismissed.
7. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand
disposed of.
(Sudhir Singh, J)
(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J)
Sujit/-
U
Checking your session…