Back
E. S. INDIRESH
Mohammad Akbar Abdul Khasim Shaikh – Appellant
Versus
Kanne – Respondent
The legal principles outlined in the provided document emphasize that the jurisdiction of a High Court to exercise review is strictly limited and cannot be used as an inherent or appellate power. The scope of review is confined to discovering new and important evidence or correcting errors that are apparent on the face of the record. It is not an opportunity to re-argue the case on merits or rehear matters on the basis of the original decision.
The document clarifies that the High Court, when exercising jurisdiction under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, is not authorized to rehear the matter on its merits or substitute its own judgment, especially after the matter has been tested and decided by the Supreme Court. Once an order has been tested before the Supreme Court and that Court has declined to interfere, the impugned order cannot be reheard or revisited as an appellate court would do, due to the bar established under Section 114 of the CPC (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the scope of review is limited to correcting patent errors or discovering new evidence that was not available despite due diligence at the time of the original order (!) (!) (!) . Repetitive arguments, minor mistakes, or disagreements with the findings on facts or evidence do not constitute valid grounds for review (!) (!) (!) .
The principles also highlight that an order refusing leave to appeal or dismissing a special leave petition does not automatically merge the order under review; rather, the order's binding effect is limited to the legal declaration or findings made within it (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In conclusion
ORDER (CAV)
In R.P.No.100088/2014, Review petitioner is assailing the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2014 in RSA No.553/2003. In R.P.No.100119/2014, Review petitioner is challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2014 in RFA No.1549/2003. In R.P.No.100124/2014, Review petitioner is questioning the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2014 in RFA No.1549/2003.
2. Since these Review Petitions are arising out of the division of the property of original propositus –Mangesh Rao and the parties to the Review Petitions claiming succession under the original propositus –Mangesh Rao, the Review Petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. In R.P.No.100088/2014, it is the contention of the petitioner that this Court without considering the rights of the petitioner and based on the finding rendered in RFA No.1549/2003, passed the impugned order without considering the grounds urged in Regular Second Appeal. It is also stated that, an opportunity has not been extended to the petitioner to put forth his case. It is also stated in the petition that the Review petitioner has purchased the schedule property from its owner wherein the rights of the vendor has been protect
Review Petition – Jurisdiction of High Court while exercising review cannot be exercised as an inherit power nor as Appellate Court be exercised in guise of power of review – Power of review may be e....
Point of law: The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeki....
A review is limited to correcting apparent errors in the record, not a re-evaluation of the case, reaffirming that findings must strike readily without extensive reasoning.
Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue the merits of a case.
(1) Review jurisdiction – Application for review would also lie if order has been passed on account of some mistake—Review court does not sit in appeal over its own order—Rehearing of matter is imper....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the review jurisdiction is limited and can only be allowed on grounds of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The court emphas....
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of review is not an inherent power and is subject to the limitations of Section 114 and Order-47, Rule-1 of CPC. A review can only b....
The appellate court's failure to address pertinent arguments submitted by the reviewing party constituted an error of law warranting the review of the judgment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
