Review jurisdiction cannot entertain a new fraud plea requiring evidentiary appraisal or reappraise the record.

Uday Goswami and others had filed WPA 11252 of 2018 challenging an order dated 12 January 2018 passed by the General Manager, Eastern Coalfields Limited, concerning appointment on account of land acquisition.

In the writ proceedings, the Court directed the respondents to file an affidavit-in-opposition, but no such affidavit was filed despite the opportunity granted in 2018.

The writ petition was ultimately decided on 21 February 2024 in the respondents’ absence, with the Court recording that no assistance had been received from them and that no affidavit-in-opposition had been filed.

Eastern Coalfields Limited sought review, contending that notice had not been properly served, that its advocate had been seriously ill, and that the writ petitioners had suppressed the fact that two other family members had already obtained employment against the same acquired land, allegedly amounting to fraud on the Court.

The review applicant relied on the doctrine that fraud vitiates judicial proceedings, while the respondents argued that the review application sought an impermissible rehearing and disclosed no error apparent on the face of the record.

1. Whether the judgment dated 21 February 2024 was liable to be reviewed on the ground that Eastern Coalfields Limited was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard or was not properly represented.

2. Whether the review applicant had established any ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, namely discovery of new and important evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.

3. Whether the alleged suppression regarding employment already granted to two relatives against the same acquired land constituted fraud warranting review or nullification of the writ judgment.

The Court applied Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, under which review is maintainable only on discovery of new and important matter despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason.

It relied on Moran Mar Basselios Catholics v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, Union of India v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd., Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, and State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta for the principle that review jurisdiction cannot be used as an appellate rehearing and is confined to patent errors or recognised review grounds.

It also considered S.P. Chengelvaraya Naidu v. Jagannath, A.V. Papayya Sastry v. State of Andhra Pradesh, Vishnu Vandhan @ Vishnu Pradhan v. Uttar Pradesh, and Sakati Bala Samanta v. Union of India for the doctrine that fraud vitiates judicial acts and that an order obtained by fraud is a nullity.

However, an allegation of fraud requiring factual adjudication and appraisal of evidence cannot ordinarily be introduced for the first time in review or revisional jurisdiction.

The Court held that the allegation of denial of opportunity was unsupported by the record.

The coordinate Bench had granted time to Eastern Coalfields Limited to file an affidavit-in-opposition in 2018 and had subsequently granted several opportunities; nevertheless, no affidavit was filed and no effective assistance was rendered at the hearing.

The illness of the conducting advocate in late 2023 and early 2024 did not explain the applicant’s failure to defend the writ petition since 2018, particularly when another counsel could have been engaged.

Accordingly, neither denial of natural justice nor any error apparent on the face of the record was established.

The allegation that two relatives had already obtained employment against the same land was also treated as a new factual case, since the order dated 12 January 2018 did not rely on or address that issue.

Determining whether fraud or suppression had occurred would require examination of evidence, which was impermissible in review jurisdiction.

The Court therefore found no new evidence, patent error, or sufficient reason justifying review.

It held that the applicant had received sufficient opportunities in the writ proceedings, had failed to establish any ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, and could not introduce a fact-intensive allegation of fraud for the first time in review jurisdiction.

Review Application RVW 125 of 2024 was dismissed, along with the connected pending application, if any; any interim order was vacated.