The Supreme Court clarifies Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, emphasizing that a review cannot be an appeal in disguise, defining the scope and limitations of review jurisdiction under civil procedure law.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Supreme Court of India has clarified the limited scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). In its judgment on September 8, the Court emphasized that a review petition cannot serve as an appeal in disguise, cautioning courts against exceeding their limited authority while entertaining review petitions.
Distinction Between Review and Appeal:
Review Petition: A mechanism allowing the same court to reconsider its own decision only to correct patent or glaring errors. It is not intended to rehear the case or reappreciate evidence.
Appeal: A statutory right enabling a higher court to reassess and correct errors in a lower court’s judgment.
The Supreme Court emphasized that these two jurisdictions must not be confused, as doing so would undermine the principle of the finality of judgments.
Facts of the Case
In the year 2000, Subramani, the son of Munusamy Naidu, instituted a partition suit seeking division of the ancestral properties. The trial court, in 2003, passed an ex parte preliminary decree in his favor. Following this, in 2004, Munusamy sold a portion of the property to K. Suguna, the respondent, while settling the remaining properties in favor of his daughter, Malleeswari, the appellant in the present case.
In 2005, an application for a final decree was moved, and subsequently, Munusamy executed a Will in 2008, further bequeathing his share to Malleeswari. After Munusamy’s death in 2011, Malleeswari asserted her rights not only as a legatee under the Will but also as a coparcener under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. On this basis, she sought amendment of the preliminary decree to secure a larger share in the property.
The trial court, however, rejected her claim in 2019, holding that the 2005 amendment could not be applied retrospectively and that she could only succeed to her father’s share. Challenging this, Malleeswari approached the Madras High Court, which in 2022 allowed her revision petition and recognized her entitlement as a coparcener.
Dissatisfied with this outcome, Suguna sought a review of the High Court’s decision. In 2024, the High Court entertained the review and remanded the matter back to the trial court, effectively reappreciating facts and altering its earlier conclusions. Aggrieved by this reversal, Malleeswari approached the Supreme Court, leading to the present appeal.
Read Also: Delhi High Court Judges Seek Transfers
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s review order, observing that:
- The High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by re-examining facts and law as though it were sitting in appeal.
- A review can only correct errors apparent on the face of the record, not re-decide the entire matter.
- The grounds for review are limited to:
- Discovery of new evidence not previously available despite due diligence.
- Error apparent on the face of the record – a clear mistake.
- Any other sufficient reason – analogous to the first two grounds.
The Court restored the High Court’s earlier 2022 order recognizing the daughter’s coparcenary rights under the 2005 amendment. It also directed the trial court to dispose of all pending applications within three months.
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, a court may review its judgment only on limited grounds:
- Discovery of new and important evidence – when material evidence is later found that could not be produced earlier despite due diligence.
- Error apparent on the face of the record – a clear mistake of fact or law visible without elaborate reasoning.
- Other sufficient reason – analogous grounds to prevent miscarriage of justice, such as misapprehension of facts, denial of fair hearing, or omission of statutory provisions (Bank of Bihar v. Mahabir Lal).
Thus, the review is strictly confined and cannot function as an appeal.
Appearance:
For the petitioner (daughter): Senior Advocate V Prabhakar and Advocates E R Sumathy, Jyoti Parasher and Harmeet Kaur
For the respondents: Advocates Shobha Ramamoorthy, Shilp Vinod, Gokulakrisnan, Avinash Ranjan, Dr. G Sivabalamurugan, Selvaraj Mahendran, C Adhikesavan, Harikrishnan PV, Dhass Prathap Singh, C Kavin Ananth and Vibha Srivastava
Case Title:
Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another
SLP (C) NO. 12787 OF 2025
Read Judgment: