A review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record, not re-evaluating cases, with no basis for changing decisions absent clear mistakes.

ORDER :

Heard Mr. B. D. Konwar, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. J.M.Konwar, learned counsel for the review petitioner. Also heard Mr. D. Saraf, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. By filing an application under Order 47 Rule 1 R/W Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the petitioner has sought for review of the order dated 24.01.2025, passed by this Court in CRP (IO) 68/2024.

3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that the review petitioner has been engaged in manufacturing and marketing ‘Green Matar Mixture’ through his company “KRISHAN”. The defendant/respondent used another trademark “KRISAAN” by merely altering a letter. In the petitioner’s view, creates the consumer confused and unjustly capitalizes on the good will associated with “KRISHAN”. It is contended that this Court erroneously presumed that the defendant/respondent’s trademark was registered, a premise which vitiates the decision, while simultaneously setting aside the interim reliefs that were necessary to prevent irreparable loss.

4. In a subsequent Special Leave Petition vide SLP(C) No.7458/2025 before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, liberty was granted to the petitioner to seek recall of the impugned order. Acting within the time frame prescribed by the Apex Court’s direction, the petitioner through this application seeks review of the said order.

5. Further case of the review petitioner is that this Court by impugned order dated 24.01.2025, dismissed CRP (IO) No.68/2024 as not maintainable and determined that the challenged to ad-interim injunction was appealable under Order 43 Rule 1 (r) CPC, thereby nullifying the ad-interim order dated 05.10.2023, passed by the learned Civil Court in Misc.(j) Case No.27/2023 filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC and Misc.(j) Case No.28/2023 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC.

6. According to learned counsel for the review petitioner, this Court in a petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, erred in setting aside the interim order dated 05.10.2023 passed by the learned Civil Court in Misc.(j) Case No.27/2023 filed under Order 26 Rule 9 CPC and Misc.(j) Case No.28/2023 filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, within the context of a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

7. It was urged by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that this Court erroneously presumed that the defendant/respondent’s impugned trade mark “KRISAAN” was registered whereas it is in fact unregistered, thereby vitiating the entire reasoning behind setting aside the trial court’s orders. The erroneous presumption of registration wrongly equated the rights of both parties, despite the plaintiffs/review petitioner’s statutory protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

8. Further submission of the learned counsel for the review petitioner is that this Court dismissed the CRP(IO) No.68/2024 as not maintainable, holding that the defendant/respondent had chosen the wrong forum, yet proceeded to set aside the orders of the trial court passed in favour of the review petitioner/plaintiff, leading to contradictory findings and an inherent miscarriage of justice. If the revision was not maintainable, this Court should not have granted substantive relief.

9. It is also contended that the impugned judgment and order of this court erroneously equates the petitioner’s well established registered trade mark “KRISHAN” with the defendants/respondent’s infringing trade mark “KRISAAN”, despite t