A review petition can be allowed if an application for additional evidence was overlooked, constituting an error apparent on the record.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present review petition asserting that he had filed an application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC for leading additional evidence, which was registered as CMP No. 5735 of 2018; however, this application was not decided by the Court. This is an error apparent on the face of the record; hence, it is prayed that the present petition be allowed and the judgment and decree passed by the Court in RSA No. 36/2007 dated 08.09.2007 be recalled.

2. No reply to the petition was filed.

3. Heard.

4. The scope of the review was explained by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in State (NCT of Delhi) v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd., (2024) 7 SCC 315: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 1090, and it was observed at page 342:

37. Read in conjunction with Section 114 CPC, Order 47 Rule 1 thereof has three broad components which need to be satisfied to set the ball for a review in motion — (i) “who” means the person applying must demonstrate that he is a person aggrieved; (ii) “when”, means the circumstances a review could be sought; and (iii) “why”, means the grounds on which a review of the order/decree ought to be made. Finally comes the “what”, meaning thereby the order the court may make if it thinks fit. Not much attention is generally required to be paid to components (i) and (ii) because of the overarching difficulties posed by component (iii). However, in deciding this reference, component (i) would also have a significant role apart from the Explanation inserted by way of an amendment of CPC.

38. Let us now briefly attempt a deeper analysis of the provision. We are conscious that the provisions relating to review have been considered in a catena of decisions, but the special features of these RPs coupled with the fact that two Hon'ble Judges of this Court have delivered a split verdict make it imperative for us not to miss any significant aspect.

39. A peep into the legislative history would reveal that Rule 1 of Order 47CPC, which is part of the First Schedule appended thereto, bears a very close resemblance to its predecessor statutes, i.e. Section 623 of the Codes of Civil Procedure of 1877 and 1882. The solitary legislative change brought about in 1976 in Order 47CPC resulted in the insertion of an Explanation at the foot of Rule 1, which is at the heart of the controversy here.

40. The first and foremost condition that is required to be satisfied by a party to invoke the review jurisdiction of the court, whose order or decree, as the case may be, is sought to be reviewed, is that the said party must be someone who is aggrieved by the order/decree.

41. The words “person aggrieved” are found in several statutes; however, the meaning thereof has to be ascertained with reference to the purpose and provisions of the statute. In one sense, the said words could correspond to the requirement of “locus standi” in relation to judicial remedies. The need to ascertain the “locus standi” of a review petitioner could arise if he is not a party to the proceedings but claims the order or decree to have adversely affected his interest. In terms of Order XLVII of the 2013 Rules read with Order 47CPC, a petition for review at the instance of a third party to the proceedings too is maintainable, the quintessence being that he must be aggrieved by a judgment/order passed by this Court. This is what has been held in Union of India v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad [Union of India v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad, (2019) 18 SCC 586]. That is, of course, not the case here. Normally, in the context of Rule 1 of Order 47CPC, it is that person (being a party to the proceedings) suffering an adverse order and/or decree who, feeling aggrieved thereby, usually seeks a review of the order/decree on any of the grounds outlined therein. The circumstances where a review would lie are spelt out in clauses (a) to (c).

42. Order 47 does not end with the circumstances as Section 114CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under Section 114 read w