Review petitions must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record, not merely an erroneous decision or disagreement with prior judgments.

ORDER :

1. The review petitioners seek to review the order dated 29.07.2024 passed by this Court in W.P. No. 48330/2018, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri. Vijay Krishna Bhat, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Harisha A.S, learned AGA, for respondent No.2 and Sri S.N.Murthy, learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record including the order under review.

3. The present review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC contemplates as under:

1. Application for review of judgment:

(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.

Explanation.—The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.

4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja Vs. Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury , AIR 1995 SC 455 at para 8, held as under:

“8. It is well settled that 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, C.P.C. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the Court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047, speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J. has made the following pertinent observations: (Para 3):

"It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of Plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of 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 some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of Appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."

Now it is