Review jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit revisiting or rehearing cases absent evident errors; it emphasizes judicial discipline.

1. Review of the Order dated 16th December 2023, passed by this Court in CM(M) No.122/2022 titled as Kewal Krishan v. Sham Lal, is sought on the grounds made mention of in the instant petition.

2. I have heard counsel for parties and considered the matter.

3. Learned counsel for petitioner would contend that it was the case of petitioner that order dated 6th August 2022 is against the law as interpreted by various courts with respect to the scope of Order VIII R.9 of the Code of Civil Procedure and that the proposed Replica contradicts the main plaint inasmuch as the date of commencement of tenancy in the plaint is specifically mentioned with effect from 1st January 2010, but petitioner exposed the mischief of respondent / plaintiff by placing on record a copy of demand draft of Rs.8.00 Lakhs in 2009 in the name of respondent towards the purchase of subject - matter of suit, respondent sought to explain it by terming it as arrears of rent by proposed Replica. It is also stated that any order of trial court which is manifestly unjust and causes miscarriage of justice is open to supervisory scrutiny of the High Court under Art.227 of the Constitution of India . It is also averred that the replica can never be permitted in law as it contravenes the case set up by plaintiff originally and therefore such a replica instead of explaining the contents of written statement is in fact amending the contents of plaint, which certainly occasion serious miscarriage of justice to petitioner who has exposed his defence to the original case set up and not to the case now being set up by proposed replica.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that while considering abovementioned contentions, the scope and ambit of S.114 read with Order XLVII R.1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is to be taken into consideration.

5. The grounds on which review can be sought are enumerated in Order XLVII R.1 CPC, which reads as under:

"1. Application for review of judgment. - (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved -

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the court which passed the decree or made the order."

6. An application for review would lie, among others, when an order suffers from an error apparent on the face of record and permitting the same to continue would lead to failure of justice. Limitations on exercise of power of review are well settled. The first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment / order cannot be disturbed.

7. The power of review can also be exercised by the court in the event discovery of new and important matter or evidence takes place which despite exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made. An application for review would also lie if the order has been passed on a