AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (6) TMI 587
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s passed by this Court upon the Special Officer to submit his report. The Special Officer submitted the report stating that the possession of the suit property has been handed over in favour of the opposite party and after receiving the said possession, the opposite party put his own padlock in the entrance gate of the suit property. An application challenging the order dated 24.02.2015 passed by the learned First Appellate Court in connection with Misc. Appeal being No. 6 of 2011 is filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India wherein a prayer was made for recalling the order dated 11.10.2023 passed by this Court wherein this Special Officer was directed to unlock the padlock so put in the suit property on 29.10.2023. The said revi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ts unless there is error apparent on the face of the record. It is said that a mere error whether factual or legal is not sufficient to invoke review jurisdiction and 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. 5. I have considered the submissions made by both the parties and have consulted with the materials on record. 6. To appreciate the scope of review, it would be proper for this Court to discuss the object and ambit of Section 114 C.P.C. as the same is a substantive provision for review. When a person considering himself aggrieved either by a decree or by an order of Court from which appeal is allowed but no appeal is preferred or wh....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....de by the Parliament or the Rules made under Article 145. Supreme Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Article 145 of the Constitution of India has framed the Supreme Court Rules, 2013. The Order XLVII 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 XLVII 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 XLVII CPC nor Order XLVII of 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 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. 8. It would appear from the said report that the power of a Civil Court to review its judgment and decision is very much limited and it may be exercised on the discovery of a new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. It may be exercised where s....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w is to be exercised for correction of mistake and not for substitution of view and a review cannot be claimed for fresh hearing of the matter or for correction of an erroneous view taken on earlier point of time. The error of law or fact of which correction is being sought must "stare in the face" without needing an elaborate argument for establishing same. 11. After going through the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court as stated above it leads no doubt that the Apex Court has repeatedly held that the jurisdiction and scope of review is not as of an appeal. It is a reluctant resort only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. The path on which the review court ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC or Section 22(3)(f) of the Act. To put it differently an order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision. 14. Keeping in mind the aforesaid principles of law, I have to hold that the petitioner has been unable to make out any ground in exercise of jurisdic....