Can a Non-Party Can Seek Review of Court Order?

It is no longer Res Integra that a Non Party can seek Review of Court Order although he may not be a party to the Court proceedings if he is 'aggrieved' by the said order. He can seek redressal against such erroneous order by filing a review application in the same case before the same bench.

It would be trite to refer to Section 114 of the CPC which reads as under:
Section114.-Review
Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved:

1. by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred.
2. by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or
3. by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,

May apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit

As is evident from the plain reading of the aforesaid section, the key phrase of the said section is 'any person' considering himself 'aggrieved'. This section comes to play only when someone is 'aggrieved' by the order, whether or not he was party to the proceedings in which the order had been passed. The application for review is admissible only when from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason.

It would be apropos to refer to K. Ajit Babu v. Union of India, AIR 1997 SC 3277 wherein a question arose before the Apex Court as to whether a review application can be filed by a person who is not a party to a case but who would be adversely affected by an earlier judgment of the tribunal. The Apex Court categorically held thus:-

4 Often in service matters the judgments rendered either by the tribunal or by the court also affect other persons, who are not parties to the cases. It may help one class of employees and at the same time adversely affect another class of employees. In such circumstances the judgments of the Courts or the Tribunals may not be strictly judgments in personam affecting only to the parties to the cases, they would be judgments in rem. In such a situation, the question arises; what remedy is available to such affected persons who are not parties to a case, yet the decision in such a case adversely affects their rights in the matter of their seniority.

In the present case, the view taken by the Tribunal that the only remedy available to the affected persons is to file a review of the judgment which affects them and not to file a fresh application under section 19 of the Act. Section 22(3)(f) of the Act empowers the Tribunal to review its decisions. Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure and Rules) (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) provides that no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within 30 days from the date, of receipt of the copy of the order sought to be reviewed.

Ordinarily, right of review is available only to those who are party to a case. However, even if we give wider meaning to the expression a person feeling aggrieved occurring in section 22 of the Act whether such person aggrieved can seek review by opening the whole case decided by the Tribunal. The right of review is not a right of appeal where all questions decided are open to challenge. The right of review is possible only on limited grounds, mentioned in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Although strictly speaking the Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure may not be applicable to the Tribunals but the principles contained therein surely have to be extended. Otherwise there being no limitation on the power of review it would be an appeal and there would be no certainty of finality of a decision. Besides that, the right of review is available if such an application is filed within the period of limitation. The decision given by the Tribunal, unless reviewed or appealed against, attains finality.

If such a power to review is permitted, no decision is final, as the decision would be subject to review at any time at the instance of party feeling adversely affected by the said decision. A party in whose favour a decision has been given cannot monitor the case for all times to come.

Public policy demands that there should be end to law suits and if the view of the Tribunal is accepted the proceedings in a case will never come to an end. We, therefore, find that a right of review is available to the aggrieved persons on restricted ground mentioned in Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure and if filed within the period of limitation.

In the case of Sri Gopa Bandhu Biswal v. Krishna Chandra Mohanty, 1998 (3) SCALE 226, following the decision in K. Ajit Balm, (supra) the Apex Court observed thus:

10 We will assume for the time being that the applicants are persons aggrieved. Even so, the question is whether they can have a judgment which has attained finality by virtue of an order of this Court, set aside in review. There is no doubt that as between the parties to the main judgment, the judgment is final and binding.

The respondents, State of Orissa and Union of India, are therefore, bound to give effect to the judgment of the Tribunal in T.A. No. 1 of 1989 in the case of Gopa-Bandhu Biswal. If this is so, can a third party by filing a review petition get that same judgment reviewed and obtain an order that Gopa-Bandhu Biswal is not entitled to the benefits of the directions contained in the main judgment since that judgment is now set aside? In our view this is wholly impermissible.

It will lead to reopening a matter which has attained finality by virtue of an order of this court. The applicants, even if they are persons aggrieved, do not have, in the present case, a right of review under any part of Order 41, rule 1. Even under Order 47, rule 1(2), the party not appealing from a decree or order can apply for review only on grounds other than the grounds of appeal which were before the appellate court, and during the pendency of the appeal.

In the present case all the grounds which were urged in review were, in fact urged before the Tribunal at the time when the tribunal decided the main application and they were also urged by the petitioner in the Special Leave Petition which was filed before this court. The Special Leave Petition has been dismissed. The same grounds cannot be again urged by way of a review petition by another party who was not a party in the main petition.

11. According to the applicants certain documents though produced before the Tribunal were not noticed by the Tribunal in deciding the main matter. Even so once a judgment of a tribunal has attained finality, it cannot be reopened after the Special Leave Petition against that judgment has been dismissed. The only remedy for a person who wants to challenge that judgment is to file a separate application before the Tribunal in his own case and persuade the tribunal either to refer the question to a larger Bench or, if the tribunal prefers to follow its earlier decision, to file an appeal before the Tribunal's judgment and have the Tribunal's judgment set aside in appeal. Review is not an available remedy.

12. Undoubtedly when the tribunal interprets Service Rules and Regulations, the interpretation so given may affect other members of that service past, present or future. One can understand a wider meaning in this context being given to the phrase person aggrieved, thus enlarging the right of persons to intervene at the hearing before the Tribunal, or in appeal, or for filing a review petition. Nevertheless, this right must be exercised at the appropriate time and in accordance with law.

A review petition must be within the scope of section 22(3)(f) of the Administrative Tribunals Act read with Order 47 Rule and must comply with the rules framed under the Administrative Tribunals Act. The present review applications are not within the principles laid down in Order 47, rule 1. They also do not comply with the relevant rules. Rule 17 of the Central Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1987 prescribes, inter alia that no application for review shall be entertained unless it is filed within 30 days from the date of the receipt of the copy of the Order sought to be reviewed.

It would be apposite to refer to the Apex Court case in Union of India versus Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors. (2019) 18 SCC 586,
wherein the Court reiterated that a Third Party can file Review if it is 'aggrieved' by the order sought to be reviewed. The Court succinctly held thus:

19.Reverting to the question of whether Union of India haslocus to file the review petition, we must immediately advert to Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("CPC") which,inter alia, postulates that "any person considering himself aggrieved" would have locus to file a review petition.

OrderXLVII of CPC restates the position that any person considering himself aggrieved can file a review petition. Be that as it may, the Supreme Court exercises review jurisdiction by virtue of Article 137 of the Constitution which predicates that the Supreme Court shall have the power to review any judgment pronounced or order made by it. Besides, the Supreme Court
has framed Rules to govern review petitions.

Notably, neither Order XLVII of CPC nor Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules limits the remedy of review only to the parties to the judgment under review. Therefore, we have no hesitation in enunciating that even a third party to the proceedings, if he considers himself an aggrieved person, may take recourse to the remedy of review petition. The quintessence is that the person should be aggrieved by the judgment and order passed by this Court in some respect.''

It would be befitting to refer to Review Petition (Civil) No. 1620 of 2023 in Civil Appeal no.1661 of 2020 in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) & Anr. & other connected cases decided recently on 31st October, 2023 (2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406). The Apex Court reiterated the dictum of Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad & Ors. (2019) 18 SCC 586, and held that a Third Party can file Review Petition as an 'aggrieved' party in case of an erroneous order.

From the aforesaid decisions of the Apex Court, it can be inferred that:-

1. ordinarily a right of review is available only to those who are party to a case,
2. in circumstances where the judgments may also affect other persons, who are not parties to the cases, such judgments being strictly not judgments in personam affecting only the parties to the cases, a right of review should be available to the aggrieved persons with the leave of the Tribunal on the restricted grounds provided the application is filed within the period of limitation,
3. the right of review of the decisions of the tribunal or court should be available only on limited grounds mentioned in Order 47, C.P.C.

Written By: Inder Chand Jain
Ph no: 8279945021, Email: [email protected]