Power of review not to be exercised to substitute a view: SC

The Supreme Court on September 8, 2025 clarified that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked unless conferred by law and is meant for limited correction of errors, not for re-appreciating cases as in appellate proceedings.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah & Justice SVN Bhatti, while interpreting the provisions of Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), underscored that the power of review is distinct from appellate jurisdiction and is circumscribed by strict statutory limitations to preserve the finality of judicial decisions.

Review vs. Appeal

The Court drew a sharp distinction between a review and an appeal. While appellate powers allow correction of all errors committed by a subordinate court, the review power is narrow and cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise.

The bench laid down guiding principles:

1. Confined scope: Review proceedings are not appeals and must remain within the strict ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

2. Not appellate in nature: Review should not be confused with an appeal where re-examination of the entire case is permissible.

3. No rehearing of erroneous decisions: A wrong decision cannot be corrected through review; that falls within appellate jurisdiction.

4. Correction, not substitution: Review is available to correct mistakes, not to substitute a different view.

5. Finality of orders: The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. Once a judgment is signed or pronounced, alteration is impermissible except to prevent miscarriage of justice or rectify palpable errors.

The Court observed, “Through a review application, an apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to explain the said error. The intimation of error at the first blush enables the court to correct apparent errors instead of leaving it to the higher court. At both stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted.”

Grounds for Review

The judgment further consolidated the permissible grounds for invoking review jurisdiction:

1. Discovery of new evidence – Where new and important material, despite due diligence, could not be produced earlier.

2. Error apparent on the face of record – An error that is manifest and patent, not one requiring elaborate reasoning or involving two possible opinions.

3. Any other sufficient reason – Reasons analogous to the above two categories.

The bench cautioned that courts must not “mix up or overlap one jurisdiction with another,” reiterating that review jurisdiction cannot expand into appellate functions.

Application to the Case

The observations came in Malleeswari vs. K. Suguna and Another, where the appellant challenged an October 19, 2024 order of the High Court. The High Court had allowed a review petition and remanded a partition suit to the trial court for fresh consideration, effectively reversing its earlier decision of September 23, 2022.

The Supreme Court, after examining the impugned order, held that the High Court had travelled beyond the permissible scope of review. The bench noted:

“The impugned order has not adverted to an error apparent on the face of the record, but has taken up an error on re-appreciation of the case and counter case of the parties. The review order records findings extending far beyond the working out of prayers in a partition suit. The order has exceeded the jurisdiction of review by a court.”

Final Direction

Allowing the civil appeals, the Court set aside the High Court’s order and restored the trial court proceedings. It further directed the trial court to expeditiously dispose of all pending applications, preferably within three months.

Case Title: Malleeswari Vs K Suguna And Another

Judgment Date: September 8, 2025

Bench: Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah & Justice SVN Bhatti