Review Power Can Be Invoked Only For Errors Apparent On Record, Not For Errors Which Are To Be Detected By Process Of Reasoning : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court observed that an erroneous decision of a court cannot be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction, but can only be corrected by the Superior Court.

An error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review, the bench comprising CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli observed.

The court observed thus while allowing an appeal filed against a judgment of Telangana High Court which allowed review petitions and thereby confirmed the impugned orders passed by the Tahsildar, Shadnagar, accepting the surrender of protected tenancy rights.

Before the Apex Court, the contention raised by Senior Advocate Abhishek Manu Singhvi, who appeared for the appellants, was that the review petitions filed by the respondents were not maintainable as they do not satisfy any of the conditions for review provided in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. It was further contended that the High Court ought not to have entertained successive review petitions filed by the respondents when they could not demonstrate emergence of any new facts or point out any error apparent on the face of the record, for allowing the review applications, must be put to test by examining the relevant provisions of law that governs review jurisdiction. Senior Advocate Mukul Rohatgi who appeared for the respondents supported the impugned order passed by the High Court.

Referring to provisions of Section 114 and Order XLVII of the CPC, the bench noted that a review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within  the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason.

Also, referring to various judgments, the bench observed:

"As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order XLVII Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other sufficient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule"."

The court noted that, in this case, in the second set of review petitions, there is no explanation offered regarding discovery of new material in the form of the documents sought to be filed.

"In order to satisfy the requirements prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it is imperative for a party to establish that discovery of the new material or evidence was neither within its knowledge when the decree was passed, nor could the party have laid its hands on such documents/evidence after having exercised due diligence, prior to passing of the order. What to speak of conclusive proof of having undertaken an exercise of due diligence for accessing the relevant documents, there is not an averment made by the respondents in the second set of review petitions to the effect that they could not trace the documents in question earlier or that they had made sincere efforts to obtain certified copies thereof before the common order dated 9th July, 2013 was passed, but could not do so for some cogent and valid reasons...

In our opinion, even otherwise, recourse to successive review petitions against the same order is impermissible more so, when the respondents have miserably failed to draw the attention of this Court to any circumstances that would entitle them to invoke review jurisdiction within the ambit of the Rules,"

Case details

S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs V. Narayana Reddy | 2022 LiveLaw (SC) 685 | CA 5503-5505 OF 2022 | 18 August 2022 | CJI NV Ramana, Justices Krishna Murari and Hima Kohli

Headnotes

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Section 114 , Order XLVII - Distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record - An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction - A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review. (Para 26)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Section 114 , Order XLVII Rule 1 - "for any other sufficient reason" means "a reason sufficient on grounds, at least analogous to those specified in the rule".(Para 26)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - In order to satisfy the requirements prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it is imperative for a party to establish that discovery of the new material or evidence was neither within its knowledge when the decree was passed, nor could the party have laid its hands on such documents/evidence after having exercised due diligence, prior to passing of the order. (Para 33)

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ; Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - A review application would be maintainable on (i) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence, were not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him when the decree was passed or the order made; (ii) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (iii) for any other sufficient reason - Scope of review jurisdiction discussed. (Para 11- 25)

Click here to Read/Download Judgment