Review jurisdiction requires a party to be aggrieved and for there to be a mistake apparent on the record to justify corrections in the previous order.

JUDGMENT :

Rakesh Kainthla, J.

The petitioner has filed the present petition for review of the order dated 13.6.2024, passed in CMP No. 11213 of 2023 in Civil Revision No. 210 of 2022. It has been asserted that the Court had allowed the application bearing CMP No. 11213 of 2023 in Civil Revision No. 210 of 2022. The Court had wrongly recorded that the judgment/order of eviction was passed on31.10.2022, whereas the learned Trial Court passed the order of eviction on 4.1.2022. The Court had failed to clarify the period for which the mesne profit was allowed. Hence the petition.

2. The petition is opposed by filing a reply taking a preliminary objection regarding lack of maintainability. It was asserted that there is no error on the face of the record. The applicant failed to mention the area of the accommodation. There is no clerical error or any other error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

3. I have heard Mr Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr Varun Chauhan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr Sumit Sood, learned counsel for the respondent.

4. Mr. Ajay Kochhar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the Court had granted the mesne profits from the date of eviction but inadvertently mentioned the date of eviction as 31.10.2022 instead of 4.1.2022. The Court had inadvertently failed to mention the period for which the mesne profit was granted by it. Therefore, it was prayed that the present petition be allowed and the errors be corrected.

5. Mr. Sumit Sood, learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The Court had consciously granted the mesne profit from 31.10.2022. Hence, he prayed that the present petition be dismissed.

6. I have given considerable thought to the submissions made at the bar and have gone through the records carefully.

7. 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 47 CPC, 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 47 CPC resulted in the insertion of an Explanation at the foot of Rule 1, which