Review under Order 47 of CPC is limited to apparent mistakes, not re-hearing of issues previously determined.

ORDER :

This matter is taken up through Hybrid arrangement (video conferencing/physical mode).

2. Mr. Swapna Kumar Ojha, learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of opp. party no.1 by Signature Not filing Vakalatnama in Court today, which is taken on record.

3. This review petition has been filed by the petitioners seeking to review/recall the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.16688 of 2025.

4. It appears that when the writ petition filed by the opp. party no.1 was taken up on 30.07.2025, challenging the order dated 17.04.2025 of the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.260/00122 of 2020, the following order was passed and the operative portion of the order dated 30.07.2025 is extracted herein below for ready reference:-

“We have carefully taken into consideration the order passed by the learned Tribunal in the Original Application and has also taken into consideration the submission made by the learned counsel at the Bar. We are of the view that once the delay was condoned by a speaking order by the Tribunal, which has not been challenged by the opposite parties, dismissing the Original Application on the ground of delay and latches is not sustainable. Therefore, we feel it appropriate to set aside the order dated 17.04.2025 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Cuttack Bench, Cuttack in O.A. No.260/00122 of 2020 and remanded the matter back to the learned Tribunal for the purpose of deciding the Original Application afresh on merits.”

5. It is apparent on record that the learned Tribunal when entertaining the O.A. No.260/00122 of 2020 on 28.01.2022 condoned the delay in filing the O.A. The said order attained finality as the present petitioners did not challenge. When the learned Tribunal finally taken up the O.A. for hearing, the O.A. was dismissed on the ground of delay. It appears that learned Tribunal escaped notice of the order dated 28.01.2022 by which the delay was already condoned while passing the final order dated 17.04.2025. Therefore, the final order by the learned Tribunal dismissing the O.A. on the ground of delay was not sustainable. That's the view we had taken while disposing of the writ petition, in which the learned Tribunal's final order dated 17.04.2025 was challenged.

6. Mr. Prakash Ranjan Barik, learned counsel for the review petitioners could not dispute the above admitted facts. However, endeavored to impress upon the Court that the order dated 30.07.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.(C) No.16688 of 2025 ought not have been passed without affording an opportunity to the review petitioners. He has also failed to point out any apparent error crept on record, which needs to be addressed in the review petition.

7. It is trite law that the ground of review petition should be inconsonance with the limited scope Signature Not provided under Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

8. Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereafter 'CPC') deals with review of judgment. An order can be reviewed by a Court only on the prescribed grounds mentioned in Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal nor can an appellate power be exercised in the guise of power of review. Review is not re-hearing of an original matter. The power of review jurisdiction cannot be exercised as an inherent power and can be exercised for the correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. Every error whether factual or legal cannot be made subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC though it can be made subject matter of appeal arising out of such order. In other words, in order to attract the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, the error/mistake must be apparent on the face of the record of the case.

9. In the case of Parsion Devi and Ors. -Vrs.- Sumitri Devi and Ors. reported in (1997) 8 Supreme Court Cases 715, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:

“9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure