Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited to obvious errors; it does not allow for re-examination of facts or merits already addressed in prior judgments.

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This petition under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (the CPC), has been filed by the appellants in FAO 53/2023 for reviewing the judgement dated 28.11.2025 dismissing the appeal. In the appeal, the review petitioners had challenged the order dated 30.01.2023of the learned District Judge, East District, Karkardooma Courts, inMisc. DJ No. 21/2022 inO.S. 2738/2016 whereby their application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 11.02.2020 was dismissed on the dual grounds of limitation and absence of sufficient cause.

2. According to the review petitioners, the impugned judgment suffers from errors apparent on the face of the record, warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. It is urged that the finding in the impugned judgment treating the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC as barred by limitation is contrary to the binding directions issued by the Apex Court vide order dated 10.01.2022 in Suo Motu W.P.(C). 3/2020 In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, in Miscellaneous Application No. 21/2022, whereby the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 stood excluded for the purposes of limitation. According to the review petitioners, the application having been filed on 27.01.2022 was within the prescribed period of limitation, and the question of delay or condonation did not arise.

2.1 It is further contended that the impugned judgment proceeds on an erroneous factual premise that the plaintiff’s witness had been partly cross-examined before the trial court, thereby attributing continued participation and knowledge of proceedings to the petitioners. The review petitioners assert that no such cross-examination took place before the trial court after transfer of the suit from this Court, and that any earlier proceedings occurred only prior to such transfer. It is urged that this assumption has materially influenced the findings relating to conduct and alleged non-appearance of the petitioners.

2.2 The review petitioners have also placed reliance on judicial precedents to submit that the approach towards delay, particularly in matters involving public authorities and public interest, ought to be pragmatic. Reference has been made to the decision of the Apex Court in Sheo Raj Singh (Deceased) through LRs & Ors. v. Union of India &Anr. (2023) 10 SCC 53, to contend that institutional delay and administrative lapses may constitute sufficient cause, especially where substantial public interest is involved. It is urged that the impugned judgment itself records that the consequences of the decree not being set aside would have serious implications, inasmuch as an operational police station is stated to exist on the disputed land.

2.3 The review petitioners further submit that the distinction drawn in the impugned judgment with respect to the decision in Deputy Commissioner of Police v. Neelam Rani MANU/DE/4033/2022 is erroneous, and that the present case also involves issues relating to acquired land and public property, supported by acquisition records and official material which formed part of the defence in the original suit.

3. The respondents oppose the review petition. It was submitted that no error apparent on the face of the record has been demonstrated. The review petition seeks re-appreciation of facts and reconsideration of issues already examined by this Court in the impugned judgment, which is impermissible. It was also submitted that sufficient opportunities were granted to the petitioners before the trial court, and that the scope of review does not permit reopening of the matter on merits.

3.1 It was further submitted that the facts of the present case are materially different from the case of Neelam Rani (supra), and that in the present case, all steps were taken by the respondents as per law, including approaching various authorities such as the District Magistrate having powers