Reaffirming Supreme Court Precedents on the Narrow Scope of Review Jurisdiction and Binding Subordinate Courts
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | RVW/53/2024 of Kalpajit Chakraborty Vs Union of India and Ors. |
| CNR | WBCHCA0086452024 |
| Decision Date | 27-08-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | Dismissed |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Justice Suvra Ghosh |
| Court | Calcutta High Court |
| Bench | Hon’ble Justice Suvra Ghosh and Hon’ble Justice Rai Chattopadhyay |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedents limiting review jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure (Order 47 Rule 1 CPC) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC can be used to re-argue issues already decided, beyond errors apparent on the record |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The Court held that review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record, a misconception of fact or law, or discovery of new evidence. It cannot be used as an appeal in disguise to re-hear merits or reargue issues that have already been decided at trial or on appeal. The learned Single Bench addressed all grounds raised—denial of cross-examination, non-consideration of medical documents, and suspension order—and found no perverse exercise of discretion. The Division Bench’s affirmation did not exhibit any error apparent on record warranting review. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
| Citations | (2005) 4 SCC 741; (1985) 3 SCC 378; (2024) 2 SCC 362; (2023) 5 SCC 627; (1995) 6 SCC 749 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Distinguishes | Union of India & Ors. (HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Union of India, 2023) and B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India (1995) |
| Follows | Board of Control for Cricket in India (2005) and Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (2024) |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that review petitions under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are strictly confined to errors apparent on the face of the record, new evidence, or mistakes of law or fact.
- Clarifies that a review cannot serve as an “appeal in disguise” to reargue settled issues or merits of a case already decided by trial and appellate courts.
- Confirms that challenges to discretionary acts in disciplinary proceedings must demonstrate malafide or extraneous considerations to succeed on review.
- Emphasizes that failure to identify a clear mistake on the record is fatal to maintainability of a review petition.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court reproduced Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and noted that under Board of Control for Cricket in India and Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, review jurisdiction is narrow, limited to:
- Errors apparent on record.
- New and important evidence not available earlier.
- Mistakes of law or fact.
- It held that errors requiring a process of reasoning or mere dissatisfaction with merits do not qualify.
- It examined the Single Bench’s judgment and found that all issues—denial of cross-examination, non-consideration of medical documents, improper suspension—were fully addressed.
- The Division Bench’s affirmation did not manifest any error apparent on record or misapplication of law.
- Permitting review would amount to re-hearing the merits, which Supreme Court precedents prohibit.
- Consequently, the review petition was held non-maintainable and dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Applicant):
- The enquiry officer wrongly refused adjournment for cross-examining 15 witnesses.
- Medical documents showing back ailments were not considered.
- Suspension order was issued in violation of CISF Rules (Section 33(1) proviso and Rule 50).
- The Assistant Commandant lacked authority to initiate disciplinary proceedings.
Respondents (Union of India & Ors.):
- The charge sheet of 30 March 2007 was valid, alleging disobedience of lawful order.
- The applicant withdrew from enquiry and did not avail adjournments granted.
- Single Bench and Division Bench correctly held no denial of natural justice.
- Relied on Sanjay Kumar Agarwal, HDFC Bank Ltd., and B.C. Chaturvedi for scope of review and disciplinary review.
Factual Background
The applicant, appointed as a CISF constable on a temporary basis in 2005 and made permanent after two years, was suspended on 5 March 2007 and charged on 30 March 2007 with insubordination and habitual misconduct. He participated in the departmental enquiry but his requests for adjournment to cross-examine witnesses and for consideration of medical certificates were refused. After punishment was imposed, he challenged the proceedings by writ (dismissed in 2018), appeal (dismissed in 2023), and then filed this review petition, which the Court dismissed.
Statutory Analysis
- Order 47 Rule 1, CPC: Defines grounds for review—errors apparent on record, new evidence, mistake, or “any other sufficient reason.”
- CISF Rules, 2001:
- Section 33(1) proviso: Suspension orders require appointing authority’s concurrence within 30 days.
- Rule 50: Grounds and procedure for revocation of suspension.
Alert Indicators
- Precedent Followed – Existing Supreme Court precedents on review jurisdiction were affirmed.
Citations
- Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club, (2005) 4 SCC 741
- Anil Kumar v. Presiding Officer, (1985) 3 SCC 378
- Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, (2024) 2 SCC 362
- HDFC Bank Ltd. v. Union of India, (2023) 5 SCC 627
- B.C. Chaturvedi v. Union of India, (1995) 6 SCC 749