Order XLVII CPC | Error Which Is Not Self-Evident & Has To Be Detected By Reasoning Not 'Error Apparent' For Exercising Power Of Review: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court has observed that while seeking review of orders passed in a civil suit, the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure have to be satisfied.

Justice Asha Menon added that a re-hearing and re-appraisal of the material on record including pleadings, would fall within the scope of an appeal and not review.

"Error" has to be an error apparent on the face of the record to attract the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC and must be a patent error which alone can be looked into in review proceedings," the Court said.

The Judge observed that an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the court exercising its power of review.

"Neither can a petitioner seek in a review, the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing of the main matter and which had been rejected. Fresh and additional material cannot be pressed into service to seek a review of an order. Minor mistakes of inconsequential importance are insufficient to seek a review. Only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so, can review be sought," the Court said.

The Court was dealing with a review petition has filed by the petitioners against an order dated 7th January, 2022.

It was the petitioner's case that the order of High Court Court dated 7th January, 2022, allowing in part the application moved by the respondent under Order XI Rules 2 and 14 of CPC was liable to be reviewed, as erroneous directions were issued on the basis of an erroneous understanding of the facts in the matter.

Reiterating that the scope of a review is extremely limited, the Court said that even where the view adopted by the court is a possible view that can be taken, it would not be a case of an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court thus concluded that it was not a case where any interference was called for exercising review jurisdiction.

"The grievance of the petitioners/defendants No.1&2 being fundamentally that the Court had fallen into error on account of the misunderstanding of the pleadings, review would not be maintainable under clause (v) and clause (viii) would also be attracted. The same relief having been sought in this review petition, namely, the rejection of the prayer of the respondent/plaintiff to produce the documents, is also hit by clause (ix) hereinabove," the Court said.

Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed.

Case Title: KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS N.V. v. VIVO MOBILE COMMUNICATION CO. LTD. & ORS.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Del) 122

Click Here To Read Order