A review petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the CPC is not an appeal in disguise; it is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue or re-examine the merits of a settled decision.

Order :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The appellants in W.A.No.1724 of 2025 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short), pleading that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 26.02.2026 passed by this Court in that writ appeal.

2. Heard Sri.P. Sreekumar, the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners, Sri.George Thomas (Mevada), the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 - State Bank of India and Smt.M.U. Vijayalakshmi, the learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent SBI Life Insurance Company.

3. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioners addressed arguments reiterating the very same contentions that were addressed in the writ appeal and considered by this Court in the judgment dated 26.02.2026. Apart from raising those contentions once again, it is further submitted by the learned Senior Counsel that in Ext.P9 notice issued under Section 13(2) of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (‘SARFAESI’ Act for short), the bank determined the borrower's liability by including the insurance premium amount, thereby treating it as a part of the loan liability and in Ext.P11 legal notice, the bank admitted that the aggregate loan sanctioned includes insurance premium of Rs.1,59,000/- and these documents are not properly appreciated by this Court while passing the judgment.

4. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 would submit that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment. The learned Standing Counsel for the 3^rd respondent also supported the aforesaid submission of the learned Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.

5. In order 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-

(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 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 of 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 app