Supreme Court Dismisses Review Petition in Property Dispute: N. Tahera & Anr. vs. Seema Begum & Anr. (30 November 2021)

Date of the Judgment: 30 November 2021

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Uday Umesh Lalit, J., Ajay Rastogi, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

Can a review petition be entertained if there is no error apparent on the record? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a recent case involving a property dispute. The Court dismissed the review petition, finding no merit to reconsider its earlier decision. This case highlights the stringent criteria for reviewing judgments, particularly at the highest judicial level. The bench comprised Justices Uday Umesh Lalit, Ajay Rastogi, and Aniruddha Bose, with the judgment being a unanimous decision.

Case Background

The case involves a property dispute between N. Tahera & Anr. (the Petitioners) and Seema Begum & Anr. (the Respondents). The Petitioners had initially filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court, which was subsequently dismissed at the admission stage. Following this dismissal, the Petitioners filed a review petition seeking a reconsideration of the Supreme Court’s decision.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Supreme Court initially dismissed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) at the admission stage, indicating that the court did not find any substantial grounds to warrant further consideration of the case. The Petitioners then filed a review petition, seeking a re-evaluation of the dismissal. The Supreme Court considered the review petition but found no error apparent on the record that would justify interference. Consequently, the review petition was also dismissed.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily deals with the Supreme Court’s inherent power to review its own judgments. The legal framework for review is based on the principle that a judgment should be final unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record. This power is not meant to be an appeal in disguise and is exercised only under specific circumstances. The Supreme Court’s power to review its own judgments is derived from Article 137 of the Constitution of India, which states that:
“Subject to the provisions of any law made by Parliament or any rules made under Article 145, the Supreme Court shall have power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it.”

Arguments

The arguments presented by the Petitioners in their review petition were essentially a plea to reconsider the dismissal of their Special Leave Petition. However, the Supreme Court did not find any new arguments or errors in the original dismissal to justify a review. The review petition was based on the premise that the initial dismissal was not justified, but the court did not find any merit in this argument. No specific legal provisions or case laws were cited in the source document.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame any issues in this order. However, the implicit issue before the Court was:

1. Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record that warrants a review of the earlier dismissal of the Special Leave Petition?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

No cases, books, or legal provisions were specifically cited or discussed by the court in this order.

Judgment

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The primary factor that weighed in the mind of the Court was the absence of any apparent error on the record that would justify a review of its earlier order. The Court emphasized that a review is not an opportunity to re-argue a case, but rather a mechanism to correct a manifest error. The Court’s decision was driven by the principle of finality of judgments, which is essential for the stability of the judicial system. The Court did not find any new facts or legal arguments that would warrant a reconsideration of its earlier decision.

The Court’s decision was based on the legal principle that a review is not an appeal in disguise, and it is only meant to correct errors apparent on the record. The Court did not find any such errors, and therefore, the review petition was dismissed.

The following quotes from the judgment highlight the court’s reasoning:

• “Considering the material on record, this Court did not find any substance in the Special Leave Petition which was rejected at the admission stage.”
• “We have gone through the Review Petition and do not find any error apparent on record to justify interference.”
• “This review Petition is dismissed.”

Key Takeaways

• ✓ Review petitions are not a second chance to argue a case.
• ✓ The Supreme Court will only review its decisions if there is an error apparent on the record.
• ✓ The principle of finality of judgments is crucial for the functioning of the judicial system.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court in this order.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no mention of specific amendments in the source document.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a review petition will not be entertained by the Supreme Court unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record. This reaffirms the existing position of law regarding the review jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition filed by N. Tahera & Anr., upholding its earlier decision to dismiss their Special Leave Petition. The Court found no error apparent on the record that would justify a review, emphasizing the principle of finality of judgments.