Not Permissible For Erroneous Decision To Be Reheard & Corrected In Review; Courts Should Not Mix Up Appellate & Review Jurisdiction: Supreme Court

The Apex Court was considering an appeal relating to a case of partition where the appellant challenged an order whereby the order allowing her revision petition was set aside.

The Division Bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti held, “ 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.”

“Courts ought not mix up or overlap one jurisdiction with another jurisdiction”, it further added.

Senior Advocate V. Prabhakar represented the Appellant while AOR Shobha Ramamoorthy represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The second Respondent’s husband, Subramani, filed a suit for partition of the suit-schedule properties into two equal shares and allot one such share to him. The suit in question was filed against Munasamy Naidu, the father of the plaintiff. It was averred in the plaintiff that the suit-scheduled properties are ancestral properties and are available for partition between the first plaintiff and the first defendant, being members of the Hindu Undivided Family. The suit was filed without impleading Malleeswari/Appellant, who is the daughter of Munusamy Naidu and Muniammal. The Trial Court passed the ex parte preliminary decree as prayed for. The first defendant executed a registered sale deed in favour of K Suguna/first Respondent, for a few items of the suit property, and also a settlement deed for other items in favour of the Appellant.

The first defendant executed a will bequeathing his share to the Appellant. When the first defendant died, the Appellant came to be pleaded as the legal heir and successor to the first defendant. The subject matter of the appeal arose from the steps taken by the Appellant praying for amending the preliminary decree in terms of her status as one of the co-parceners and entitling her to an equal share along with the father and the brother. The application for amendment of the preliminary decree was opposed by the first and second Respondents.

The Appellant’s case was that as a daughter of a living coparcener at the time the act came into force, she was entitled to a 1/3rd share. Thus, she claimed her father’s 1/3rd share through the Will, bringing the total to 2/3rd share. The Appellant further contended that the sale to the first Respondent was invalid as it occurred after the amendment’s cut-off date. This petition to amend the preliminary decree was dismissed by the Trial Court. The High Court allowed the civil revision petition of the appellant. The respondent thereafter filed a review, which came to be allowed; the revision order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court. It was in such circumstances that the appellant approached the Apex Court.

Reasoning

Highlighting that the power of review is different from the appellate power and is subject to limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions, the Bench stated, “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.”

“The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power”, it noted.

The Bench explained, “The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors.”

On the aspect of grounds available for a review, the Bench stated, “The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.” The Bench also made it clear that a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record. “Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision.An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record”, the order read.

Coming to the facts of the case, the Bench found that the impugned order had not adverted to an error apparent on the face of the record, but had 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”, it held.

Thus, allowing the appeal, the Bench set aside the impugned order and restored the revision petition. “The Trial Court is directed to expeditiously dispose of all the pending applications, preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this judgment”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1080)

Appearance

Appellant: Senior Advocate V. Prabhakar, AOR E. R. Sumathy, Advocates Jyoti Parasher, Harmeet Kaur

Respondent: AOR Shobha Ramamoorthy, Advocates Shilp Vinod, Gokulakrisnan, Avinash Ranjan, AOR G. Sivabalamurugan, Advocates Selvaraj Mahendran, C. Adhikesavan, Harikrishnan P.V., Dhass Prathap Singh, C. Kavin Ananth, Vibha Srivastava

Click here to read/download Order