Review jurisdiction under S.114 and O.47 R.1 CPC is limited to self-evident errors, new evidence or sufficient analogous reasons and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise.

Order :

Muralee Krishna S., J.

The petitioner in O.P.(KAT)No.322 of 2017 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/wSection 114of theCode of Civil Procedure, 1908(‘CPC’ for short), pleading that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 10.02.2026 passed by this Court in that original petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Tribunal failed to consider what is the actual grievance of the petitioner and the question of law raised by the petitioner is left unanswered even though Annexure A2 order dated 06.07.2015 passed by the Senior Administrative Officer and Annexure A3 order dated 31.12.2016, passed by the Government, are produced and challenged in the original application. The said omission on the part of the Tribunal to consider the grievance of the petitioner is a mistake on the part of the Tribunal which caused miscarriage of justice to the petitioner. Even though the Tribunal did not consider the challenge against Annexures A2 and A3 in the original application, this Court may consider the grievance of the petitioner, which was in existence at the time of disposal of the original petition.

4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment of this Court, and the petitioner cannot reagitate the issue decided against him by using review jurisdiction as an appeal in disguise.

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 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