Does an application for reviews in a case where the judgment is rendered erroneous by reason of a statutory amendment with retrospective effect?

Question: Does an application for reviews in a case where the judgment is rendered erroneous by reason of a statutory amendment with retrospective effect? [UPHJS 1995]

Find the answer to the mains question only on Legal Bites. [Does an application for reviews in a case where the judgment is rendered erroneous by reason of a statutory amendment with retrospective effect?]

Answer

In cases where a judgment is rendered erroneous by reason of a statutory amendment with retrospective effect, the appropriate legal remedy is to file an application for review. The application for review allows the court to reconsider its earlier decision in light of the subsequent change in law. The Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) contains provisions that govern the review process, particularly Order 47.

Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC provides for the grounds on which a review can be sought. It states that a review can be filed on the following grounds:

a. Discovery of New and Important Matter or Evidence:

The applicant must show that after the pronouncement of the judgment, new and important matter or evidence has come to light, which was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by them at the time of the original hearing.

b. Mistake or Error Apparent on the Face of the Record:

The applicant must establish that there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record that has resulted in an incorrect decision. The mistake or error must be self-evident and not require any lengthy examination or argument to establish.

It is important to note that a mere change in law, including a retrospective amendment, may not necessarily constitute a ground for review unless it meets the criteria mentioned above. However, if the retrospective amendment has a direct impact on the case and renders the earlier judgment erroneous, it can be a valid ground for review.

In cases where a retrospective amendment affects the judgment, the affected party can argue that the court's decision, which was correct based on the law at the time, has become incorrect due to the change in the law. The party seeking the review must demonstrate how the retrospective amendment alters the legal position and makes the earlier judgment erroneous.

The application for review must be filed within the prescribed time limit. As per Order 47, Rule 1, the application should be filed within 30 days from the date of the decree or order sought to be reviewed. However, the court has the discretion to condone the delay in filing the review application if sufficient cause is shown.

Upon receiving the review application, the court will examine the grounds raised and consider whether a review is warranted. The court may conduct a hearing, invite submissions from both parties and evaluate the impact of the retrospective amendment on the earlier judgment. If the court finds that there is merit in the review application, it may set aside or modify the original judgment accordingly.

Therefore, yes, an application of review lies in such a case Supreme Court in Raja Shatranjit v. Mohd. Azamal Azim Khan, AIR 1971 SC 1474. An application of review is not maintainable in law in respect of a judgment which is rendered erroneous by a subsequent statutory amendment. But the position is not the same if such a judgment is rendered erroneous by a subsequent statutory amendment with retrospective effect. That's why Allahabad High Court in Mohd. Azamal Azim Khan v. Raja Shatranjit, AIR 1963 All 541 (FB) observed that A judgment based on law as it stood on the day the judgment is pronounced may, be correct. But where the law is altered subsequently by an Amending Act which is brought into force with retrospective effect, the judgment pronounced is rendered "erroneous on the face of record". In such a circumstance an application for review under Order 47 of C.P.C. made within the period of limitation may be entertained and the judgment may be reviewed.

The Supreme Court in above referred case further held that it is true that a subsequent change in law is not a ground for review but a change in law with retrospective effect is not a subsequent law. In view of the decisions given by Allahabad High Court and the Supreme Court in the above-referred cases, it is clear that an application for review is maintainable in a case where the judgment is rendered erroneous by reason of a statutory amendment with retrospective effect.

Important Mains Questions Series for Judiciary, APO & University Exams