Supreme Court lays down grounds for review jurisdiction, says it can't be appeal in disguise

The Supreme Court on Monday reiterated that proceedings initiated to review a judgment under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) cannot be confused with appeal proceedings [Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another].

A review petition generally involves asking a court to reconsider its own judicial decision and correct any patent or glaring errors on the face of the record.

An appeal, on the other hand, involves a more comprehensive reassessment of a lower court's judicial decision by a higher court.

In its September 8 ruling, a Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti cautioned that courts ought not mix up review jurisdiction with appellate jurisdiction.

The Court reiterated that a review petition serves a limited purpose and cannot be permitted to function as an appeal in disguise.

"The 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 of CPC. Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of 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," the Court said.

The Bench summed up the grounds available for review as follows:

- If some new and important evidence or fact is discovered, which even after careful effort, was not known or could not be produced when the original order or judgment was passed.

- If there is a clear and obvious mistake on the face of the record. It should be a mistake that is easily seen without long reasoning or debate. Just because a decision is wrong does not make it a reviewable error.

- For any other sufficient reason, but this reason must be similar in nature to the first two grounds.

The Court was hearing a plea arising out of a partition suit filed in 2000 by a son against his father, in which the daughter was not impleaded. In February 2003, an ex-parte preliminary decree was passed. Subsequently, in December 2004, the father sold part of the properties to a third party and settled the remaining in favour of his daughter.

In January 2005, an application for a final decree was filed. In April 2008, the father executed a will bequeathing his share to the daughter, and on his death in May 2011 she was impleaded as his legal heir. The purchaser was also added to the proceedings in 2013.

In 2018, the daughter sought amendment of the preliminary decree to claim rights as a coparcener under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The trial court rejected this in March 2019, holding that the amendment could not apply retrospectively and that she could only represent her father’s share.

The High Court, in September 2022, set aside this order and upheld her entitlement to claim rights as a coparcener.

On review, however, in October 2024, the High Court remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration.

Aggrieved by the order, the daughter approached Supreme Court.

The apex court held that the High Court had exceeded its limited review jurisdiction by reappreciating facts and overturning its earlier findings as though exercising appellate powers.

"The impugned order has not adverted to an error apparent on the face of the record, but has taken up an error on reappreciation of the case and counter case of the parties. The review order records a few findings extending far beyond the actual working out of prayers in a suit for partition. The order impugned has exceeded the jurisdiction of review by a court," the top court found.

The Supreme Court reiterated that review jurisdiction comes with strict limitations.

Accordingly, the High Court’s review order was set aside. The earlier High Court order recognizing the daughter’s entitlement as a coparcener under the 2005 amendment was restored. The trial court was directed to dispose of all pending applications within three months.

Senior Advocate V Prabhakar and Advocates E R Sumathy, Jyoti Parasher and Harmeet Kaur appeared for the petitioner (daughter).

Advocates Shobha Ramamoorthy, Shilp Vinod, Gokulakrisnan, Avinash Ranjan, Dr. G Sivabalamurugan, Selvaraj Mahendran, C Adhikesavan, Harikrishnan PV, Dhass Prathap Singh, C Kavin Ananth and Vibha Srivastava appeared for the respondents.

[Read Judgment]