Power Of Review Not To Be Exercised To Substitute A View, Says Supreme Court

Last Updated:September 09, 2025, 15:54 IST

The bench explained that courts ought not mix up or overlap one jurisdiction with another jurisdiction

Supreme Court of India (PTI)

The Supreme Court on Monday said the review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the court.

A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah pointed out Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power of review is different from appellate power and is subject to the limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions.

In a judgment, the court listed out the review limitations:

(1) 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.

(2) 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.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

(5) 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.

The bench said, “To wit, through a review application, an apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to explain the said error. The intimation of error at the first blush enables the court to correct apparent errors instead of the higher court correcting such errors. At both the above stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted."

The court also summed up the grounds for review:

(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 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.

(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. 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.

(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.

The bench explained, “Courts ought not mix up or overlap one jurisdiction with another jurisdiction."

Having noted the appellate and review jurisdiction of the court, the court applied these principles to the impugned order to ascertain whether the high court was within its power of review jurisdiction or had exceeded it by reversing the findings, as if the high court were sitting in appeal against the order of September 23, 2022.

The appellant was aggrieved with the impugned order of October 19, 2024, by which the high court allowed the review application and remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration.

After having gone through the details, the Bench said, “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."

Allowing the civil appeals, the court set aside the impugned order and directed the trial court to expeditiously dispose of all the pending applications, preferably within three months.

Sanya Talwar

Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...Read More

Sanya Talwar, Editor at Lawbeat, has been heading the organisation since its inception. After practising in courts for over four years, she discovered her affinity for legal journalism. She has worked previousl...

Read More

News india Power Of Review Not To Be Exercised To Substitute A View, Says Supreme Court

Read More