The Regional Provident Fund Commisssioner And ORS. v. M/S Saket Housing Ltd.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.305 of 2014 IN LPA 803 of 2013 ===========================================================

1. The Regional Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, R Block, Road No.6, Patna-800001.

2. The Assistant Provident Fund Commissioner, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, R Block, Road No.6, Patna-800001.

3. The Recovery Officer, Office of the Recovery Officer, Employees Provident Fund Organization, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India, Regional Office, Bhavishyanidhi Bhawan, R Block, Road No.6, Patna-800001. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

M/s Saket Housing Ltd., Banasal Tower, Exhibition Road, Patna represented through its Director, Sri Sudarshan Kumar Bansal, Abhisek Plaza, Exhibition Road, Patna- 800001.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv. Mr. Krishna Chandra, Adv.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH) Date: 12-04-2017 This review application has been filed on behalf of the petitioners for review of the order dated 24.06.2014 passed in L.P.A. No. 803 of 2013 whereby the L.P.A. preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed by the Division Bench.

2.

The petitioners have tried to take us to the pleadings made in the writ application as well as the Letters Patent Appeal to

Patna High Court C. REV. No.305 of 2014 dt.12-04-2017 2/2 highlight that an erroneous order has been passed by this Court ignoring certain facts.

3.

In our considered opinion, this is not the scope of either Section 114 or Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It is well settled that the power of review may be exercised on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the person seeking review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made or it may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found. But, it cannot be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be within the domain of the Court of Appeal.

4.

In that view of the matter, we find no merit in this application. It is accordingly dismissed.

(Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) Pradeep/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 13-04-2017 Transmission Date