LexMALLEESWARI versus K. SUGUNA AND ANOTHER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 9 S.C.R. 574 : 2025 INSC 1080 Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another (Civil Appeal No. 11437 of 2025) 08 September 2025 [Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti,* JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the order impugned conforms to the scope of review of an order u/s.114 and Or.47 of CPC. Headnotes† Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.114 and Or.47 – The subject matter of the appeal arises from the steps taken by the appellant in I.A no.1199 of 2018, 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 – On 08.03.2019, the Trial Court dismissed IA no.1199 of 2018-a petition to amend the preliminary decree dated 25.02.2003 – The appellant filed CRP No.1439 of 2019 in the High Court against the order dated 08.03.2019 and the same was set aside – However, the respondent filed a review application – Through the impugned order dated 19.10.2024, the review application was allowed – The High Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration – Correctness: Held: The grounds of review are summed up as follows: i) 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; ii) 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; iii) Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason’ * Author [2025] 9 S.C.R. 575 Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories – In the instant case, the impugned order has not adverted to an error apparent on the face of the record, but has 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 – Thus, the order impugned is set aside, and consequently, the order dated 23.09.2022 in CRP is restored. [Paras 17.1, 17.2, 17.3, 19] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or.47, R.1 – Power of Review – Review Jurisdiction – Limitations: Held: i) 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; ii) Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court; iii) 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; iv) 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; v) 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. [Para 15.1-15.5] Case Law Cited Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma [2020] 10 SCR 135 : (2020) 9 SCC 1; Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [1994] Supp. 5 SCR 503 : (1995) 1 SCC 170; Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (1979) 4 SCC 389; Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [1997] Supp. 4 SCR 470 : (1997) 8 SCC 715; Lily Thomas v. Union of India [2000] 3 SCR 1081 : (2000) 6 SCC 224; Inderchand Jain v. Motilal [2009] 11 SCR 252 : (2009) 14 SCC 663; Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR (1963) SC 1909; Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque [1955] 1 SCR 1104; T.C. Basap
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.