1. Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd.
represented through
Managing Director
Plot No.N-17/2, Nayapalli
Bhubaneswar - 751 012
District: Khordha.
2. The Executive Engineer
Lift Irrigation Division
Jajpur Road
At/P.O.: Dalla
District: Jajpur.
3. The Executive Engineer
Lift Irrigation Division
Bhubaneswar
At/P.O.: Bhubaneswar
District: Khordha. ... Petitioners
1. Jayaram Behera
Son of Late Bhajani Behera
At: Bodhakhandi Jagiri
P.O.: Sisilo, P.S.: Balipatna
District: Khordha.
2. Goura Chandra Praharaj
Son of Late Dayanidhi Rath
At/P.O.: Atanda, P.S.: Balijhari
District: Cuttack.
3. State of Odisha,
Represented through
Additional Chief Secretary to Government
Water Resources Department,
At: Rajiv Bhawan, Bhubaneswar,
District: Khordha. ... Opposite Parties
4. Heard Sri Ashok Kumar Panigrahi, learned counsel for
the petitioners, Sri Dayananda Mohapatra, learned
senior counsel appearing for opposite party Nos.1 and 2
and Sri Saswat Das, learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the opposite party No.3.
5. Having perused the Order dated 26th October, 2022
passed in the writ appeal, it is manifest that the Division
Bench of this Court has taken cognizance of the fact as
affirmed in the counter affidavit. It is profitable to quote
paragraph 3 of the said order hereunder:
6 of the writ petition it is humbly submitted
that the opposite party No.2 has declared the
petitioners as surplus category of employee
through his Letter No.22267 dt.26.12.2005 and
the authority has decided to retrench zero/
surplus employees, since the case of the
petitioners is pending before the Hon'ble High
Court, they have not been retrenched.' "
5.8. In Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. Vrs. Katta Sujatha
Reddy, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3214 the principles for
exercising power of review has been summarized in the
following manner:
"19. This Court has laid down the following principles on
the exercise of review Jurisdiction1:
a. Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and
have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC;
b. Error on the face of record must be an error which
must strike one on a mere perusal and must not on a
long drawn process;
c. The power of review must not be exercised on the
ground that the decision was erroneous on merits;
d. The phrase "any other sufficient reason" means a
reason that is analogous to the grounds specified in
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; and
e. The mere possibility of two views on the subject
cannot be a ground for review."
5.9. In the case of Malleeswari Vrs. K. Suguna and another,
2025 INSC 1080, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India
propounded the ambit of review as follows:
"17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of
review and appellate power, we restate the power
and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are
summed up as follows:
17.1. 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
1 See Murali Sundaram Vrs. Jothibai Kannan, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185; Karnail
Singh Vrs. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 961; Kamlesh Verma Vrs.
Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320; Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vrs. State Tax Officer,
(2024) 2 SCC 362
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.
17.2. 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 [Hari Vishnu Kamath Vrs.
Syed Ahmad Ishaque, (1995) 1 SCR 1104].
Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong
decision [T.C. Basappa Vrs. T.Nagappa, AIR (1954)
SC 440].
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
[Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde Vrs.
Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC
137].
17.3. Lastly, the phrase 'for any other sufficient reason'
means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least
analogous to those specified in the other two
categories [Chhajju Ram Vrs. Neki, 1922 SCC
OnLine PC 11 and approved in Moran Mar Basselios
Catholicos Vrs. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954
SC 526]."
5.10. It is pertinent to have reference to the following
paragraph found in Yashwant Sinha Vrs. CBI, (2020) 2
SCC 338:
"64. Two documents, which were part of the record, were
considered by the Judicial Commissioner to allow
review by the High Court. This Court, in appeal, in
the judgment in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma Vrs.
Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389, found as
follows:
'4. In the present case both the grounds on which
the review was allowed were hardly grounds
for review. That the two documents which were
part of the record were not considered by the
court at the time of issue of a writ under Article
226 cannot be a ground for review especially
when the two documents were not even relied
upon by the parties in the affidavits filed before
the Court in the proceedings under Article 226.
Again that several instead of one writ petition
should have been filed is a mere question of
procedure which certainly would not justify a
review. We are, therefore, of the view that the
Judicial Commissioner acted without
jurisdiction in allowing the review. The order of
the Judicial Commissioner dated 07.12.1967 is
accordingly set aside and the order dated
25.05.1965, is restored. The appeal is allowed
but without costs.' ***"
5.11. In S. Tirupathi Rao Vrs. M. Lingamaiah, (2024) 7 SCR
1077 it has been observed as follows:
"21. In Meera Bhanja Vrs. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury,
(1994) Supp.5 SCR 503 this Court affirmed the ratio
in Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma (supra) and further
expounded that review proceedings were not by way
of an appeal, and would have to be strictly confined
to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the
CPC. It was further held that an error apparent on
the face of the record must be such an error which
must strike one on mere looking of the record,
obviating the need for long-drawn reasonings on two
possible opinions. This Court in Haridas Das Vrs.
Usha Rani Banik, (2006) 4 SCC 78 while reiterating
the decisions in Meera Bhanja (supra) and Aribam
Tuleshwar Sharma (supra), drew out the narrow
contours within which review jurisdiction of this
Court had to be exercised and held that Order XLVII,
CPC does not allow for the rehearing of a dispute
merely because a party had not highlighted all
aspects of the case."
5.12. In Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vrs. State Tax Officer, (2024) 2
SCC 362 it has been observed as follows:
"7. At the outset, it may be stated that the power to
review its judgments has been conferred on the
Supreme Court by Article 137 of the Constitution of
India. Of course, that power is subject to the
provisions of any law made by Parliament or the
Rules made under Article 145. The Supreme Court in
exercise of the powers conferred under Article 145 of
the Constitution of India has framed the Supreme
Court Rules, 2013. Order 47 of Part IV thereof deals
with the provisions of review. Accordingly, in a civil
proceeding, an application for review is entertained
only on the grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of
the Code of Civil Procedure and in a criminal
proceeding on the ground of an error apparent on the
face of record. However, it may be noted that neither
Order 47 CPC nor Order 47 of the Supreme Court
Rules limits the remedy of review only to the parties
to the judgment under review. Even a third party to
the proceedings, if he considers himself to be an
"aggrieved person", may take recourse to the
remedy of review petition. The quintessence is that
the person should be aggrieved by the judgment and
order passed by this Court in some respect. [Union of
India Vrs. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad, (2019)
18 SCC 586]. In view of the said legal position, the
review petitioners who claimed to be the "aggrieved
persons" by the impugned judgment dated
06.09.2022 [State Tax Officer Vrs. Rainbow Papers
Ltd., (2023) 9 SCC 545], were permitted to file
review petitions and were heard by the Court.
***
9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as his Lordship then
was) "a plea of review, unless the first judicial view
is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A
forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to
have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws
and reversal of result. A review in the counsel's
mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So,
the law laid down must rest in peace." [Northern
India Caterers (India) Ltd. Vrs. State (UT of Delhi),
(1980) 2 SCC 167]
10. It is also well-settled that a party is not entitled to
seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court
merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh
decision of the case. The normal principle is that a
judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified only when
circumstances of a substantial and compelling
character make it necessary to do so. [Sajjan Singh
Vrs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1965 SC 845]
***
12. Again, in Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. Vrs. Assam
SEB, (2020) 2 SCC 677, a three-Judge Bench of this
Court following Parsion Devi Vrs. Sumitri Devi,
(1997) 8 SCC 715 dismissed the review petitions
holding that the scope of review is limited and under
the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions
which have already been addressed and decided.
13. Recently, in Shri Ram Sahu Vrs. Vinod Kumar
Rawat, (2021) 13 SCC 1, this Court restated the law
with regard to the scope of review under Section 114
read with Order 47, CPC.
14. In Arun Dev Upadhyaya Vrs. Integrated Sales
Service Ltd., (2023) 8 SCC 11, this Court reiterated
the law and held that:
'35. From the above, it is evident that a power to
review cannot be exercised as an appellate
power and has to be strictly confined to the
scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. An
error on the face of record must be such an
error which, mere looking at the record should
strike and it should not require any long-drawn
process of reasoning on the points where there
may conceivably be two opinions.'
15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the
Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation Vrs. K.S.
Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Review-5 J.), (2021) 3 SCC 1,
held that even the change in law or subsequent
decision/judgment of coordinate Bench or larger
Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for
review.
16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that: -
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the
record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified only when
circumstances of a substantial and compelling
character make it necessary to do so.
(iii) 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 record
justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision
to be "reheard and corrected."
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot
be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions
which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error
which, mere looking at the record should strike and
it should not require any long-drawn process of
reasoning on the points where there may
conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/
judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself
cannot be regarded as a ground for review."
5.13. Observations made in S. Madhusudhan Reddy Vrs. V.
Narayana Reddy, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1034 are as
follows:
"22. It is also settled law that in exercise of review
jurisdiction, the Court cannot reappreciate the
evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if
two views are possible in a matter. In Kerala State
Electricity Board Vrs. Hitech Electrothermics &
Hydropower Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 651, this Court
observed as follows:
'10. *** In a review petition it is not open to this
Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a
different conclusion, even if that is possible.
Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to
impress us that the correspondence exchanged
between the parties did not support the
conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid
such a submission cannot be permitted to be
advanced in a review petition. The appreciation
of evidence on record is fully within the domain
of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the
evidence produced, the court records a finding
of fact and reaches a conclusion, that
conclusion cannot be assailed in a review
petition unless it is shown that there is an error
apparent on the face of the record or for some
reason akin thereto. It has not been contended
before us that there is any error apparent on
the face of the record. To permit the review
petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation
of evidence would amount to converting a
review petition into an appeal in disguise.'
23. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party
cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled
arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at
in a judgment. The power of review is not to be
confused with the appellate power which enables
the Superior Court to correct errors committed by a
subordinate Court. This point has been elucidated in
Jain Studios Ltd. Vrs. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd.,
(2006) 5 SCC 501 where it was held thus:
'11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on
merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the
opponent is right in submitting that virtually
the applicant seeks the same relief which had
been sought at the time of arguing the main
matter and had been negatived. Once such a
prayer had been refused, no review petition
would lie which would convert rehearing of the
original matter. It is settled law that the power
of review cannot be confused with appellate
power which enables a superior court to correct
all errors committed by a subordinate court. It
is not rehearing of an original matter. A
repetition of old and overruled argument is not
enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The
power of review can be exercised with extreme
care, caution and circumspection and only in
exceptional cases.
12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the
applicant herein had been made at the time
when the arbitration petition was heard and
was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought
by an indirect method by filing a review
petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the
nature of 'second innings' which is
impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be
granted.' ***"
5.14. Crux of the contentions is that the order in writ appeal
was passed based on erroneous appreciation of the
pleadings and wrong assumption with respect to factual
aspect with respect to the arguments advanced. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Thungabhadra
Industries Limited Vrs. The Government of Andhra
Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 has succinctly stated the
distinction between a mere erroneous decision and a
decision which could be characterised as vitiated by
"error apparent". The relevant portion of the judgment
reads as follows:
"There is a distinction which is real, though it might not
always be capable of exposition, between a mere
erroneous decision and a decision which could be
characterised as vitiated by "error apparent". A review is
by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous
decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent
error. Where without any elaborate argument one could
point to the error and say here is a substantial point of
law which stares one in the face, and there could
reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a
clear case of error apparent on the face of the record
would be made out."
5.15. The dictum in Thungabhadra Industries (supra) is
reiterated in Parsion Devi Vrs. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC
715, wherein it has been held that 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 XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of
Civil Procedure. It is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be reheard and corrected in exercise of the
jurisdiction under Order XLVII, Rule 1 and that, a review
petition cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.
Later, in Lily Thomas Vrs. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC
224, it is observed that the power of review can be
exercised for correction of the mistake, but not to
substitute a view. In Perry Kansagra Vrs. Smriti Madan
Kansagra, (2019) 3 SCR 991, following exposition on
exercise of review jurisdiction may be relevant:
"We have gone through both the judgments of the High
Court in the instant case and considered rival
submissions on the point. It is well settled that an error
which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning
can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of
the record. To justify exercise of review jurisdiction, the
error must be self-evident. Tested on this parameter, the
exercise of jurisdiction in the present case was not correct.
The exercise undertaken in the present case, in our
considered view, was as if the High Court was sitting in
appeal over the earlier decision dated 17.02.2017. Even
assuming that there was no correct appreciation of facts
and law in the earlier judgment, the parties could be left
to challenge the decision in an appeal. But the review was
not a proper remedy at all. In our view, the High Court
erred in entertaining the review petition and setting aside
the earlier view dated 17.02.2017."
5.16. It is exposited in Inderchand Jain Vrs. Motilal, (2009) 14
SCC 663 as follows:
"The High Court had rightly noticed the review jurisdiction
of the court, which is as under:
'The law on the subject-- exercise of power of review, as
propounded by the Apex Court and various other High
Courts may be summarised as hereunder:
(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and
have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) Power of review may be exercised when some
mistake or error apparent on the fact of record is
found. But error on the face of record must be such
an error which must strike one on mere looking at
the record and would not require any long-drawn
process of reasoning on the points where there may
conceivably be two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground
that the decision was erroneous on merits.
(iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any
sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a
misconception of fact or law by a court or even an
advocate.
(v) An application for review may be necessitated by
way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem
gravabit."
5.17. The principles afore-discussed are applicable for exercise
of review jurisdiction by the High Court in the context of
judgment/order passed in exercise of power under the
writ jurisdiction. The following observation contained in
S. Murali Sundaram Vrs. Jothibai Kannan, (2023) 13 SCC
515 may be relevant for better comprehension:
"20. From the reasoning given by the High Court, it
appears that according to the High Court the
judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No. 8606
of 2010 was erroneous. While passing the impugned
judgment and order [Jothibai Kannan Vrs. S. Murali
Sundaram, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 16542] the High
Court has observed and considered the survey
report dated 12.12.2007 which was already dealt
with by the High Court while deciding the main writ
petition and the High Court discarded and/or not
considered the survey report dated 12.12.2007.
Once the survey report dated 12.12.2007 fell for
consideration before the High Court while deciding
the main writ petition thereafter the same could not
have been considered again by the High Court while
deciding the review application.
21. From the impugned judgment and order [Jothibai
Kannan Vrs. S. Murali Sundaram, 2021 SCC OnLine
Mad 16542] passed by the High Court it appears
that the High Court has decided the review
application as if the High Court was exercising the
appellate jurisdiction against the judgment and
order dated 03.03.2017 passed in S. Murali
Sundaram Vrs. State of T.N., 2017 SCC OnLine Mad
689 which is wholly impermissible while considering
the review application under Order 47, Rule 1 read
with Section 114, CPC.
22. From the impugned judgment and order [Jothibai
Kannan Vrs. S. Murali Sundaram, 2021 SCC OnLine
Mad 16542] passed by the High Court allowing the
review application it is observed in para 33 as
under:
'33. The above legal principles were borne in mind
by this Court while considering the review
application. Brushing aside a survey report,
which was available on record and which
brought out tampering of official records, ought
to have been taken note of by the learned writ
court, while considering the prayer sought for
in the writ petition. This has led to an error,
which is manifest on the face of the order.
Furthermore, the Court proceeded on the basis
that S.M. Gajendran had executed a gift deed
without noting the fact that the gift deed was a
document, which was unilaterally executed by
him, not accepted by the respondent
Corporation and could not have been treated to
be a valid gift. These facts have emerged on
the face of the order passed in the writ petition
without any requirement for a long-drawn
reasoning. Therefore, we are fully satisfied that
we are justified in exercising our review
jurisdiction. For the above reasons, we are of
the clear view that the order passed in the Writ
petition suffers from error apparent on the face
of the records warranting exercise of review
jurisdiction.'
23. From the aforesaid it appears that the High Court
has considered the review application as if it was an
appeal against the order passed by the High Court
in Writ Petition No. 8606 of 2010. As observed
hereinabove, the same is wholly impermissible while
deciding the review application. Even if the judgment
sought to be reviewed is erroneous the same cannot
be a ground to review the same in exercise of
powers under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. An erroneous
order may be subjected to appeal before the higher
forum but cannot be a subject-matter of review
under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC.
24. In view of the above and for the reasons stated
above and applying the law laid down by this Court
on Order 47, Rule 1 read with Section 114, CPC, we
are of the opinion that in the present case while
allowing the review application the High Court has
exceeded in its jurisdiction and has exercised the
jurisdiction not vested in it under Order 47, Rule 1
read with Section 114, CPC and therefore the
impugned judgment and order [Jothibai Kannan Vrs.
S. Murali Sundaram, 2021 SCC OnLine Mad 16542]
passed by the High Court allowing the review
application and setting aside the order dated
03.03.2017 passed in S. Murali Sundaram Vrs.
State of T.N., 2017 SCC OnLine Mad 689 is
unsustainable and the same deserves to be quashed
and set aside."
5.18. It has been clarified in S. Tirupathi Rao Vrs. M.
Lingamaiah, (2024) 7 SCR 1077 that the parameters laid
down in Order LXVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil
Procedure would be guiding factor for the purpose of
considering review petition against an order emanating
from writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India. Relevant portion of the said judgment is
extracted hereunder:
"11. While proceeding to determine the correctness of the
impugned order vis-à-vis the exercise of review
jurisdiction, we ought to remind ourselves of certain
cardinal principles. The exercise of review
jurisdiction is not an inherent power given to the
court; the power to review has to be specifically
conferred by law. In civil proceedings, review
jurisdiction is governed by Section 114 read in
conjunction with Order XLVII of the CPC and the
court has to be certain that the elements prescribed
therein are satisfied before exercising such power.
This Court in Kamlesh Verma Vrs. Mayawati, (2013)
11 SCR 25 has succinctly observed that:
'19. 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, CPC."
12. That the provisions contained in section 114 and
Order XLVII of the CPC relating to review of an order
or decree are mandatory in nature and any petition
for review not satisfying the rigours therein cannot
be entertained ex debito justitiae, by a court of law,
is trite.
13. There is a plethora of decisions analysing the
statutory provisions governing the exercise of review
jurisdiction; however, we would be referring to a few
of them for the purpose of the present exercise.
Suffice it to note that despite legal proceedings
having commenced with institution of the civil suit as
far back as in 1953, the present controversy has, as
its source, a writ petition between the first
respondent and the Tahsildar preferred in 2009.
Although the explanation to Section 141 of the CPC
makes it clear that provisions of the CPC would not
apply to proceedings under Article 226 of the
Constitution, there is authority in abundance that
the principles flowing from the CPC may safely be
taken as a guide to decide writ proceedings but to
the extent the same can be made applicable."
5.19. The factual errors, if any, as being canvassed
assiduously by the learned counsel for the Odisha Lift
Irrigation Corporation Ltd. cannot be the basis for
exercise of review jurisdiction. Reference in this regard
can also be made to Asharfi Devi Vrs. State of U.P.,
(2019) 5 SCC 86. It has been stated succinctly therein
that,
"18. It is settled law that every error whether factual or
legal cannot be made subject-matter of review under
Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code though it can be made
subject-matter of appeal arising out of such order. In
other words, in order to attract the provisions of
Order 47, Rule 1 of the Code, the error/mistake
must be apparent on the face of the record of the
case."
Conclusion:
6. In W.P.(C) No.19546 of 2016, vide Order dated
15.01.2018, this Court observed "Keeping in view the
above observation in the present case the petitioners have
not been retrenched and continuing in the job for which
they are entitled to get the arrear salary from 2009 till
date". In the writ appeal this Court having taken note of
assertion made in the counter affidavit, observed that,
"Even according to the Appellant, Respondent Nos.l and 2
were not retrenched and continued during the pendency
of OJC No.8539 of 2000 filed by them seeking
regularisation. OJC No.8539 of 2000 was in fact disposed
of on 10th of January, 2019 by the learned Single Judge
directing absorption of the writ petitioners therein on
regular basis. It appears that the Appellant-Corporation
did not file any appeal against the above order dated 10th
of January, 2019 in OJC No.8539 of 2000 which thus
attended finality."
6.1. With the given legal perspective of scope of exercise of
review jurisdiction as discussed in the foregoing
paragraphs, it is unequivocal that the learned counsel
appearing for the review petitioners sought for rehearing
of the matter by re-appreciating evidence on record.
Such a course is impermissible and having not made out
a case for review it is held that the order impugned
suffers from no patent error. The scope and jurisdiction
of review engulfs patent error and not erroneous
decision. In the former case, the Court may exercise
review jurisdiction as error apparent on the face of the
record; nonetheless, in the latter case, such
order/judgment is susceptible to be challenged before
the higher forum where the entire issue would remain
writ large.
6.2. A conspectus of the decisions rendered by the Supreme
Court, on the limited scope for exercise of review
jurisdiction, makes it abundantly clear that an alleged
erroneous appreciation of the pleadings or wrong
assumption of the contentions cannot be a ground for
review. Taking a plea of an error apparent on the face of
the record, it reminded solemn duty to ascertain whether
the error "can come within the four corners of the
record". Every error is not capable of being corrected
while exercising review jurisdiction, but the error must
be of such magnitude which can be detected on the face
of the record. Any error required to be found after
making a roving enquiry into the voluminous documents
cannot be termed as an error apparent on the face of the
record nor should the review jurisdiction be exercised
under such parameter solely on the basis of what can be
logically deduced from the record.
6.3. In the present case, the review petitioners by filing
counter affidavit in the writ petition, have admitted that
the opposite party Nos.1 and 2 were not retrenched, but
allowed them to continue in the job, which led to passing
of an order by the learned Single Judge with a direction
to grant arrear salary from 2009 onwards. Such fact
having been considered in the writ appeal, there is no
scope for this Court to entertain this review petition.
6.4. Under the aforesaid premises, this Court finds no
ground warranting review of the Order dated 26th
October, 2022 passed by this Court in W.A. No.198 of
2018.
7. Having found no merit, the review petition is dismissed.
7.1. As a result of the disposal of the review petition, all
pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of.
(HARISH TANDON)
CHIEF JUSTICE
(MURAHARI SRI RAMAN)
JUDGE
Signed by: LAXMIKANT MOHAPATRA
High Court of Orissa, Cuttack
Designation: Senior Stenographer
Reason: Authentication
The 30th October, 2025//MRS/Laxmikant
Location: High Court of Orissa,
Cuttack
Date: 07-Nov-2025 14:59:42
