2025 (6) TMI 587 - HC - Indian Laws

Challenge to review petition - Limited scope of review jurisdiction as prescribed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and Section 114 CPC - apparent error on the face of record or not - HELD THAT - It would be proper for this Court to discuss the object and ambit of Section 114 C.P.C. as the same is a substantive provision for review. When a person considering himself aggrieved either by a decree or by an order of Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or where there is no provision for appeal against an order and decree may apply for review of the decree or order as the case may be in the Court which may order or pass the decree. From the bare reading of Section 114 C.P.C. it appears that the said substantive power of review under Section 114 CPC has not laid down any condition as the condition precedent in exercise of power of review nor the said Section imposed any prohibition on the Court for exercising its power to review its decision. However an order can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. An application for review is more restricted than that of an appeal and the Court of review has limited jurisdiction as to the definite limit mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC itself. The powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power can be exercised in the guise of power of review. The power of a Civil Court to review its judgment and decision is very much limited and it may be exercised on the discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. It may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found and it may also be exercised on any analogues ground. But it may not be exercised on the ground the decision was erroneous on merits because it would be the province of a Court of an appeal. So a mere error whether factual or legal is not sufficient to invoke review jurisdiction. It is observed by the Hon ble Apex Court in the case of Asharafi Devi (D) Thr. Lrs.-vs- State of U.P. 2019 (2) TMI 1816 - SUPREME COURT wherein it is said that it is a settled law that every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other wards in order to attract provision of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case. So a mistake or error which the party pleads for seeking review must be one which is self-evident. If a matter is required to be first reheard and then corrected it would be an appeal under the guise of review. Review is an exception to the Rule that once the court has pronounced the judgement and signed it it has no jurisdiction to alter it and it ceases to have control over it. However an error can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. An application for review is more restricted than that of an appeal and the Court of review has limited jurisdiction and defined limit mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC itself. The powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power be exercised in the guise of power of review. Conclusion - The petitioner has been unable to make out any ground in exercise of jurisdiction for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. This petitioner is seeking to reopen the merits of the case by way of the instant application and if one goes through the grounds of review one will immediately see that the application is an effect and substantive seeking to have the revision reheard on the merit in the review application which is not permissible under the law. There are no reason to review the order dated 30.01.2024. There is no error apparent on the face of the record nor have any other grounds been made out by the petitioner which would persuade to review the order - review petition dismissed.

Summary

1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED

The core legal questions considered by the Court in this judgment include:

• Whether the review petition against the order dated 30.01.2024 merits interference under the limited scope of review jurisdiction as prescribed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) and Section 114 CPC.
• Whether there exists any apparent error on the face of the record or any other ground justifying review of the order dismissing the Civil Revisional Application (C.O. 1048 of 2015).
• Whether the revisional application was erroneously dismissed solely on the basis of the Special Officer's report regarding possession of the suit property, ignoring the petitioner's grievance about non-service of summons and ex-parte dismissal.
• The extent and limitations of the Court's power to review its own order, particularly distinguishing review jurisdiction from appellate jurisdiction.

2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS

Issue 1: Scope and Limitations of Review Jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and Section 114 CPC

Relevant legal framework and precedents: The Court extensively examined the scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 CPC and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, highlighting that review is a substantive provision but is circumscribed by strict conditions. The Court referred to authoritative precedents including the Supreme Court's judgment in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer (2023) and Asharafi Devi (D) Thr. Lrs. v. State of U.P. (2019), which clarified that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting "mistake or error apparent on the face of the record" and cannot be invoked to re-agitate or re-argue settled points or to correct errors of merit.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court underscored that the power of review is not an appellate power and cannot be exercised to simply re-hear or re-decide the matter. The error must be self-evident and glaring, not requiring elaborate reasoning or debate. Mere factual or legal errors are insufficient unless they are manifest on the face of the record. The Court emphasized that review is an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed, it cannot be altered.

Application of law to facts: Applying these principles, the Court found that the petitioner's grounds essentially sought to revisit the merits of the revisional application, which is impermissible in review proceedings.

Issue 2: Whether the Revisional Application was Erroneously Dismissed Ignoring the Petitioner's Main Grievance

Key evidence and findings: The petitioner contended that the revisional application was dismissed solely based on the Special Officer's report confirming possession delivery to the opposite party and did not address the petitioner's main contention that summons were not served, leading to an ex-parte dismissal. The petitioner argued this was a material irregularity and illegality.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court acknowledged the petitioner's submission but held that such a grievance does not amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. The Court noted that the petitioner was effectively seeking to re-open the entire revisional application on merits rather than pointing out any glaring or self-evident mistake in the earlier order. The Court reiterated that review jurisdiction cannot be used as a substitute for appeal or re-hearing.

Treatment of competing arguments: While the petitioner urged that the revisional dismissal was illegal and irregular, the opposite party's counsel stressed the limited scope of review and the necessity of an apparent error for review jurisdiction to be invoked. The Court accepted the latter position, relying on settled legal principles.

Application of law to facts: The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record in the dismissal of the revisional application and held that the petitioner's plea amounted to an impermissible attempt to reargue the case.

Issue 3: Legality of the Special Officer's Report and its Effect on the Revisional Application

Key evidence and findings: The Special Officer's report stated that possession of the suit property was handed over to the opposite party, who had placed his own padlock on the property. This factual finding was central to the dismissal of the revisional application.

Court's interpretation and reasoning: The Court treated the report as a material on record that justified the dismissal of the revisional application. There was no challenge to the correctness or admissibility of the report itself. The Court did not find any legal infirmity in relying on this report to conclude that possession had changed hands.

Application of law to facts: The Court concluded that the revisional application was rightly dismissed on the basis of the report, and the petitioner's attempt to challenge this through review was unwarranted.

3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS

The Court articulated several crucial legal principles and final determinations, including:

"The power of a Civil Court to review its judgment and decision is very much limited and it may be exercised on the discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made."

"A mere error whether factual or legal is not sufficient to invoke review jurisdiction and in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case."

"An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review."

"The powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power be exercised in the guise of power of review."

"A petition seeking review cannot be entertained at drop of hat. 'Any' or 'every' mistake is not sufficient for invoking review jurisdiction. Mistake has to be such which is apparent and manifest on the face of record and if not corrected, would result into miscarriage of justice."

"The petitioner is seeking to reopen the merits of the case by way of the instant application and if one goes through the grounds of review, one will immediately see that the application is an effect and substantive seeking to have the revision reheard on the merit in the review application, which is not permissible under the law."

Final determination: The review petition was dismissed as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record or any other valid ground under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC to justify review. The Court reaffirmed that review jurisdiction is narrowly confined and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise or to reargue the case on merits.