Review jurisdiction cannot reappraise merits; Supreme Court restores the writ order and remits connected matters.

Review under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC cannot be used to correct an allegedly erroneous decision on merits or to reargue material already considered; it is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record or other recognised grounds. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had exceeded review jurisdiction by treating the review as an appeal, so the review order was unsustainable. As the dismissal of the connected writ petitions and contempt petition followed that review order, those consequential orders were set aside and remitted for fresh consideration on their own merits, and the earlier writ order was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in allowing review under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the earlier writ order was erroneous. (ii) Whether the orders dismissing the connected writ petitions and contempt petition were liable to be set aside and remitted after restoration of the writ order.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in allowing review under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the ground that the earlier writ order was erroneous.

Analysis: Review jurisdiction is confined to correction of an error apparent on the face of the record or other grounds recognised by the provision. It cannot be used to sit in appeal over the earlier decision, to reappreciate material already considered, or to substitute one view for another. An order said to be erroneous on merits is not, by that reason alone, reviewable. The High Court, while allowing review, reconsidered material already dealt with in the writ proceedings and treated the review as though it were an appeal.

Conclusion: The High Court exceeded the limits of review jurisdiction and its order allowing review was unsustainable.

Issue (ii): Whether the orders dismissing the connected writ petitions and contempt petition were liable to be set aside and remitted after restoration of the writ order.

Analysis: The dismissal of the connected proceedings was a consequence of the order passed in review. Once that review order was found unsustainable and the original writ order restored, the consequential dismissals could not stand. Those matters required fresh consideration by the High Court on their own merits.

Conclusion: The connected writ petitions and contempt petition were set aside and remitted for fresh decision in accordance with law.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded, the review order was quashed, the earlier writ order was restored, and the connected matters were sent back for fresh adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: Review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 cannot be invoked to correct an allegedly erroneous decision on merits or to reargue matters already considered; it lies only for an error apparent on the face of the record or other legally recognised grounds.

---