Madras High Court
D. Ravi vs S. Radha on 10 August, 2023
Review Application No. 145 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 10.08.2023
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE R. KALAIMATHI
REVIEW APPLICATION No. 145 of 2023
D. Ravi ..Petitioner
Vs.
S. Padmavathi (Deceased)
1. S. Radha
2. Mrs. K. Vijaya
3. Mr.P. Srinivasan
4. S. Pushpalatha
5. Sripriya ..Respondents
Prayer: Review Petition as against the judgment dated 25.04.2023
passed in A.S. No. 151 of 2017.
For Petitioner :: Mr.P. Chandrasekar
For Respondents :: Mr.P. Paul Selvam
1\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 145 of 2023
ORDER
(Made by S. Vaidyanathan,J.)
The above review petition has been filed as against the judgment
dated 25.04.2023 passed in A.S. No. 151 of 2017.
2. A detailed judgment had been passed by this Court after
considering the factual aspects and the submissions made on either side. By
way of review petition, the petitioner is trying to introduce new documents,
which is not permissible. He should have invoked Order XLI Rule 27 of
Civil Procedure Code for receiving additional documents and after contest,
depending upon the objections that may be taken by the other side, this
Court may render a finding. That apart, in paragraph No.9 of the judgment
under challenge, this Court had also considered about receiving unregistered
partition deed dated 14.04.1967.
3. Even based on merits, we find that there is no need to review
the judgment passed in A.S. No. 151 of 2017, more so, in the light of the
following judgments:
2\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 145 of 2023
(i) The Special Officer, Kallal Co-operative Primary
Agricultural and Rural Development Bank Ltd., Karaikudi,
Sivagangai District Vs. R.M.Rajarathinam and Others
[Review Application (MD). No.82 of 2013] decided on
04.02.2015, a Division Bench of this Court held as follows:
“10... It is well settled that the scope of review is
very limited. The review applicant cannot re-argue and
he is not entitled for re-hearing on merits.”
(ii) Dhanalakshmi Vs. M.Shajahan and others reported in
AIR 2004 Madras 512, wherein another Division Bench of this
Court opined that the power of review is not an appeal in
disguise. The relevant paragraphs of the said order are extracted
below:
"11. From the above judgments, it is seen that the
law is well settled inasmuch as the power of review is
available only when there is an error apparent on the face
of the record and not on erroneous decision. If the parties
aggrieved by the judgment on the ground that it is
erroneous, remedy is only questioning the said order in
appeal. The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1
C.P.C. may be opened inter alia only if there is a mistake
or an error apparent on the face of the record. The said
power cannot be exercised as is not permissible for an
erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A
review application also cannot be allowed to be "an
appeal in disguise". Similarly, the error apparent on the
face of the record must be such an error, which must
3\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 145 of 2023
strikes one on mere looking at record and would not
require any long drawn process of reasoning on points,
where there may conceivably be two opinions.”
(iii) R.Mohala Vs. M.Siva and others in Review
Petition No.61 of 2018 and WMP.No.10818 and 10819 of
2018 decided on 25.04.2018, wherein one of us (SVNJ)
elaborately discussed the scope of review and in Paragraph
Nos.7 and 8, it was held as follows:
“7.The basic principle to entertain the review under
Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. is to correct the errors but not to
substitute a view. The judgment under review cannot be
reversed (or) altered taking away the rights declared and
conferred by the Court under the said judgment; once a
judgment is rendered, the Court becomes functus officio and it
cannot set aside its judgment or the decree; no inherent powers
of review were conferred on the Court; the review Court
cannot look into the trial Court judgment; it can look into its
own judgment for limited purpose to correct any error or
mistake in the judgment pointed out by the review petitioner
without altering or substituting its view in the judgment under
review; the review court cannot entertain the arguments
touching the merits and demerits of the case and cannot take a
different view disturbing the finality of the judgment; the
review cannot be treated as appeal in disguise, as the object
behind review is ultimately to see that there should not be
miscarriage of justice and shall do justice for the sake of
justice only and review on the ground that the judgment is
erroneous cannot be sustained.
8. It is settled law that even an erroneous decision
cannot be a ground for the Court to undertake review, as the
4\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 145 of 2023
first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review
petition is that the order under review of which is sought,
suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and in
absence of any such error, finality attached to the
judgment/order cannot be disturbed.”
(iv) Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury
reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
while considering the scope of the power of review of the
High Court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C., held as follows:
"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 C.P.C. The review petition of error apparent
on the face of the record and not on any other ground. An
error apparent on the face of the record must be such an error
which must strike one on mere looking at the record and
would not require any longdrawn process of reasoning on
points where there may conceivably be two opinions. The
limitation of powers on court under Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. is
similar to jurisdiction available to the High Court while
seeking review of the orders under Article 226."
(v) Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitri Devi, reported in 1997 (8)
SCC 715, the Hon'ble Apex Court held as follows:
"Under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC a judgment may be
open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not
self-evident and has to be detected by a process of
reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the
face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power
5\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Review Application No. 145 of 2023
S. VAIDYANATHAN,J.
AND
R. KALAIMATHI,J.
nv
of review under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. In exercise of the
jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1, 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."
4. The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner was
referring to the document, which was not marked. Therefore, beyond the
scope of review, he is not permitted to traverse. Hence, we are of the
considered opinion that this review application is liable to be dismissed as
not maintainable in law. Accordingly, the review application stands
dismissed. No costs.
(S.V.N.J.) (R.K.M.J.)
nv 10.08.2023
Review Application No.145 of 2023
6\6
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
