When the review will not be maintainable
Review proceedings
In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others, (2013) 8 SCC 320, while dealing with the issue, the Apex Court detailed the grounds on which a review is maintainable and otherwise. In paragraphs 19 and 20 of the judgment, it was held as under:-
(19)Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be
strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In
review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the
judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as
the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not
entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an
alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.
Summary of the principles
Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
When the review will be maintainable:
i)Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which,
after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the
petitioner or could not be produced by him;
ii)Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
iii)Any other sufficient reason.
The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki, AIR 1992 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526, to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.,(2013) 8 SCC 337.
When the review will not be maintainable:
i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough
to reopen concluded adjudications.
ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
iii)Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original
hearing of the case.
iv)Review is not maintainable unless the material error,
manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or
results in miscarriage of justice.
v)A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an
erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but les only for patent error.
vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot
be a ground of review.
vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not
be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
viii)The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within
the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be
advanced in the review petition.
ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought
at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”
N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria & Ors, (2013)15 SCC 534, the Apex Court held as under:-
“A careful look at the impugned order would show that the High
Court had a fresh look at the question whether the appellant
could be impleaded in the suit filed by the respondent No.1 and,
in the light of the view which it took, it recalled its earlier order
dated 08.06.2011. The course followed by the High Court is
clearly flawed. The High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction
by reconsidering the merits of the order dated 08.06.2011. The
review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is
mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment
does not call for review. The mistake apparent on record means
that the mistake is self evident, needs no search and stares at its
face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The
review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits.”
Parsion Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others, (1997) 8 SCC 715, by holding as under:
“Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter
alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
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
the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47
Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be
“reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has
a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”
