Madras High Court
R.Jaya vs K.Rajendran on 3 August, 2023
Rev.A.No.85/2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED :: 03.08.2023
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.VAIDYANATHAN
AND
THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE T.V.THAMILSELVI
REVIEW APPLICATION No.85 of 2023
R.Jaya ... Applicant
-vs-
1.K.Rajendran
2.The District Collector,
Cuddalore District,
Cuddalore.
3.The Sub Collector,
Office of the Sub Collector,
Cuddalore District.
4.Virudhachalam Municipality,
rep.by its Commissioner,
Virudhachalam,
Cuddalore District.
5.The Tahsildar,
Virudhachalam,
Cuddalore District. ... Respondents
1/10
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.A.No.85/2023
Prayer: Review Application filed to review the order of this Court made in
W.A.No.14474 of 2021, dated 16.07.2021.
For Applicant : Mr.S.Saravana Kumar
For Respondents 2 & 3 : Mr.A.Selvendran,
Spl.Govt.Pleader
For Respondent 4 : Mr.P.Srinivas
ORDER
(By S.Vaidyanathan,J.)
Review Applicant / fifth respondent in the Writ Petition has come forward
with this Application, seeking to review the order of this Court made in W.P.No.14474
of 2021, dated 16.07.2021.
2. Writ Petitioner / first respondent herein filed W.P.No.14474 of 2021 for
a Writ of Mandamus to direct the respondents 1 to 4 therein to forthwith remove the
illegal encroachment made by the fifth respondent therein in the Pattai Road in
T.S.No.8, Old Survey No.5, at Ward E, Block 50, Virudhachalam Town, Cuddalore
District, by considering and passing necessary orders on the representation of the
petitioner, dated 11.06.2020.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.A.No.85/2023
3. The said Writ Petition was disposed of by a Division Bench, directing
third and fourth respondents to make a joint inspection of the property in question after
issuing notice to the parties concerned and find out whether the fifth respondent had
encroached the pathway and, if so, to remove the encroachment after following due
process of law.
4. The case of the first respondent herein in the Writ Petition was that he
was in possession of the property in Old Survey No.6/8B (part) at Ward E, Block 50,
Virudhachalam Town, Cuddalore District, after getting patta and, abutting his property,
there was a pathway in Old Survey No.5, New T.S.No.8 and, only through the said
pathway, he was having access to the property and, that being so, the private respondent
had put up a house and prevented him from having ingress and egress to his property.
Hence, the above said direction was issued by the Division Bench, while disposing of
the Writ Petition.
5. The ground raised by the review applicant for reviewing the order is that
the order in the writ petition was obtained by the writ petitioner behind her back and, by
citing the said order, the writ petitioner, who is the first respondent herein, is coming in
her way of occupying the house.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.A.No.85/2023
6. It is now fairly well settled by a catena of decisions of this Court as also
the Supreme Court that the scope of review is very minimal and it is circumscribed by
the provisions of the statute. It would be relevant to refer to a few Judgments of this
Court and also the Supreme Court to understand and appreciate the scope of review
jurisdiction to find out if the applicant has made out a case for reviewing the order,
dated 16.07.2021, passed in W.P.No.14474 of 2021.
7. A Division Bench of this Court, in the case of 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, 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.”
8. In another decision of a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of
Dhanalakshmi Vs. M.Shajahan and others, reported in AIR 2004 Madras 512, it was
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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.A.No.85/2023
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 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.''
9. Furthermore, in 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, one of
us (S.Vaidyanathan,J.) elaborately discussed the scope of review and, in Paragraph
Nos.7 and 8, 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.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.A.No.85/2023
8. It is settled law that even an erroneous decision cannot be a
ground for the Court to undertake review, as the 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.”
10. The Supreme Court, in the case of Meera Bhanja Vs. Nirmala Kumari
Choudhury, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, 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."
11. In Parsion Devi Vs. Sumitri Devi, reported in 1997 (8) SCC 715, the
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 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.A.No.85/2023
"reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a
limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
12. From a reading of the above referred decisions, it can be fairly
discerned that :
1.Review is not an appeal in disguise.
2.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.
3.A wrong exposition of the law or a wrong application of the
law and failure to apply the correct law cannot be a ground for
review.
4.The power to review is a restricted power given through a
Court to go through the Judgment only to correct it or improve it, on
the basis of some material which ought to have been considered,
escaped consideration or failed to be placed before it for any other
reason, but not to substitute a fresh or a second Judgment.
5.The power of review cannot be invoked to correct the
erroneous Judgment and the finality attached to a Judgment cannot
be disturbed.
6.Only errors which are apparent on the face of the record in
the sense that errors which strike on mere looking at record can only
be corrected and not those that require long drawn process of
reasoning on point.
The above are some of the basic principles, on which the power to review rests.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.A.No.85/2023
13. To review a Judgment / Order, the Applicant needs to satisfy three
basic requirements of Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C., which are as under:
(i) From discovery of new and important matter or evidence which
after exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge (or) could
not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed (or) order
made;
(ii) There is some mistake (or) error apparent on the face of the
record in the judgment/order under review; and
(iii) or any other sufficient reasons.”
14. The ground raised by the applicant, in our considered opinion, is
beyond the scope of the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC so also the law laid down
by the Supreme Court and this High Court. The applicant, under the guise of Review
Application, wants this Bench to re-write its Judgment, which is not possible under
review jurisdiction. As already stated above, Review is not an appeal in disguise and
there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, we do not find any
ground to review the order passed by this Court.
15. It is represented by applicant that the writ petitioner has also
encroached a major portion of the whole area. This aspect cannot be gone into in the
Review Application. If the applicant has got any grievance, it is open for her to agitate
the same in accordance with law.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.A.No.85/2023
16. Review Application stands dismissed accordingly. No costs.
[S.V.N.,J.] [T.V.T.S.,J.]
03.08.2023
Index: Yes / No (2/2)
Internet: Yes / No
Speaking order/Non speaking order
dixit
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Rev.A.No.85/2023
S.VAIDYANATHAN, J.
&
T.V.THAMILSELVI, J.
dixit
REV.APLW.No.85 of 2023
(2/2)
03-08-2023
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
