The review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the record, and cannot be used to reargue issues already determined.

ORDER :

Muralee Krishna, J.

1. These review petitions are filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, by the respective review petitioners-respondents in W.A.Nos.808, 815, 830, 831, 837 and 838 of 2024, seeking review of the common judgment dated 19.05.2025 passed by this Court, whereby the writ appeals were allowed by setting aside the impugned judgments passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions which were under challenge in the writ appeals.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners/respondents and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the review petitioners-respondents argued that the respective Excise Inspectors deputed to the distilleries of the review petitioners-respondents though ought to have been present in the distilleries from morning to evening to supervise the manufacturing and other allied activities of liquor in those establishments, have not been present for the whole day, since only an additional charge was given to them. The finding of this Court, based on the submission of the learned Senior Government Pleader in paragraph 12 of the judgment that the officers would be present in the distilleries from morning to evening to supervise the manufacturing and other allied activities of liquor in those establishments is an error apparent on the face of the record occurred due to non appraisal of full facts at the time of hearing the appeals. Even after the passing of the common judgment in the appeals, the respondents have received the amount to the extent of the charge allowance payable to the Excise Inspector in one of the cases, and the document pertaining to the same is produced as Annexure D in RP No.782 of 2025. Therefore, the judgment passed by this Court is liable to be reviewed.

4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would argue that statutorily, the Excise officers should be present in the distillery to supervise the manufacturing and other allied activities for the whole time. If any of the officers are absent, there may be sufficient reason for the same, and it cannot be taken as a ground to review the judgment. The learned Senior Government Pleader further submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment.

5. To understand the circumstances that entitle the Court to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions concerned as well as the law on the point laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court is concerned.

6. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus:

“114. Review Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-10 (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”

7. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus:

“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