Orissa High Court Dismisses Review Plea Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Exoneration Of Ex-Registrar General From Disciplinary Action Affirmed
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Orissa Division Bench of Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, on September 17, 2025, rejected a review petition filed on the administrative side of the Court against its May 2025 ruling that had cleared a former Registrar General of misconduct charges. The review plea sought to reopen findings relating to the officer’s role in registering a suo motu writ petition without prior approval of the then Chief Justice. The Bench, however, found no apparent error in the earlier judgment, reiterating that the officer’s actions were undertaken in good faith and did not warrant disciplinary penalty. By affirming the exoneration, the Court emphasized the limited scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code and declined to entertain attempts to reargue issues already adjudicated.
The case arose from Review Petition where the petitioners, led by the Registrar General of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, challenged the judgment dated 2 May 2025. The petitioners sought restoration of the original writ petition and a rehearing, contending that fabricated records had been relied upon in reaching the impugned decision.
The petitioners argued that a parallel and fabricated set of documents was produced before the Court, which created an error apparent on the record. Reference was made to Annexure-16 series, alleged to demonstrate discrepancies between the original records and those placed before the Bench. Mrs. Rath submitted that an order dated 9 September 2021 in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No.7943 of 2021 recorded that orders dated 24 February 2021 remained unsigned, which contradicted findings in the impugned judgment.
The petitioners asserted that the registration of the Suo Motu Writ Petition based on an unsigned order was impermissible without approval of the Chief Justice. It was further argued that the dissent of the second Judge in the Division Bench was disregarded, and reliance was wrongly placed on an order dated 7 April 2021 in W.P.(C) No.11802 of 2020, which was claimed to be founded on fabricated documents.
In support of these submissions, precedents including State of Rajasthan v. Prakash Chand (1998) 1 SCC 1, A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Government of A.P. (2007) 4 SCC 221, and Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab AIR 1963 SC 1909 were cited to contend that fraud vitiates all judicial acts and review jurisdiction exists to prevent miscarriage of justice.
Opposing the petition, Senior Advocate Mr. Budhadev Routray for the opposite party argued that the grounds raised were impermissible at the review stage. He contended that oral dissent alleged on 24 February 2021 was unsupported by record and raised for the first time. He further submitted that the Three-Judge Bench order in Suo Motu W.P.(C) No.7943 of 2021 related only to registration of the writ petition and did not govern the disciplinary proceedings central to the present case. Mr. Routray stated that review cannot serve as an appeal and that the petition sought to reopen issues conclusively decided.
The Court, after examining the records, held that the limited scope of review jurisdiction. Justice S.S. Mishra, writing for the Bench, stated: “The Review Petitioners indeed seek a complete re-hearing of the writ petition in the guise of revisiting the judgment, which is barred under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C.”
Addressing the allegation of fabricated records, the Court noted that repeated directions had been issued to produce original documents in sealed cover during the writ proceedings, which were duly examined. The judgment recorded: “In the entire counter affidavit, there is not a single whisper regarding existence of such parallel record… It is for the first time in the Review Petition that this point has been urged.”
Regarding the letter dated 10 May 2021 from the puisne Judge, the Bench observed: “From reading of the letter, the following aspects are emanating. Firstly, the order dated 24.02.2021 was a judicial order and secondly, he was not aware of the fabricated and parallel file being created.” The Court further recorded: “Admittedly on 26.02.2021, when the writ petitioner approved for registration of the Suo Motu proceeding, there was no dissent by the Second Judge on record.”
The Court considered the affidavit dated 4 April 2025 filed by the Special Officer (Administration), which stated that no rule or standing order existed requiring prior permission of the Chief Justice for registration of suo motu cases based on an order of Court. The Bench recorded: “In the absence of any Rules/regulation and/or convention… no fault of the writ petitioner could be established per se.”
On the broader contours of review jurisdiction, the Bench relied upon Malleeswari v. K. Suguna (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927), holding: “Review is intended only to correct a manifest error or to consider material which could not be produced earlier despite due diligence. An error apparent on the face of the record… must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record.” The Court stressed that “the existence of an alternative view by itself does not fall within the limited grounds of review as recognised by law.”
The judgment recorded: “A review is not an appeal in disguise, and re-evaluation of facts or law to substitute one plausible view with another is outside the permissible scope.”
The Court declared that reliance on Annexure-16 series and allegations of fabricated documents could not be entertained at the review stage. It observed that departmental proceedings had been initiated against officers concerning creation of records, but those were irrelevant for determining the disciplinary misconduct at issue.
“Even if the submissions of learned Senior Counsel Mrs. Pami Rath are accepted in toto, the most that could be contended is the possibility of an alternative view. However, the existence of an alternative view by itself does not fall within the limited grounds of review as recognised by law.”
“For the forgoing reasons, the Review Petition deserves no merit, hence the prayer made in the petition is not acceded to. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: Mrs. Pami Rath, Senior Advocate; Mr. Pratyasish Mohanty, Advocate
For the Respondents: Mr. Budhadev Routray, Senior Advocate; Mr. J. Biswal, Advocate; Mr. Aurobinda Mohanty, Additional Standing Counsel
Case Title: Registrar General of the Hon’ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack and others v. Malaya Ranjan Dash and another
Case Number: RVWPET No.160 of 2025
Bench: Justice Sangam Kumar Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra
