A review petition cannot be used to challenge a judgment merely based on disagreement; it must show an error apparent on the face of the record.

Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

Heard on the question of admission.

2. The present Review Petition has been filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC, 1908 seeking review of the judgment dated 09.06.2025 passed in WA No.1224/2025 whereby Writ Appeal was disposed of upholding the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge and directions were issued to avail alternative remedy of appeal under Section 421 of the Companies Act, 2013. The Review Petitioner is respondent No.10 in the WA and in the Writ Petition as well. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner is aggrieved by the directions/liberty contained in paragraph 10 of the impugned judgment which states as follows:

“In the circumstances, without entering into the merits of the case, the appellants are granted liberty to approach the NCLAT in appeal within a period of 15 days from today. If the appellants approach the Appellate Tribunal within the aforesaid period, the period of limitation prescribed to prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal shall not come in the way of filing the appeal. The learned Appellate Tribunal shall not dismiss the appeal on the ground of delay and proceed to hear the appeal on merits. It is made clear that if the appeal is not filed within the afore said period, then the NCLAT may entertain the appeal subject to law of limitation and proceed to decide the appeal as expeditiously as possible.”

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid direction is ex-facie erroneous and is liable to be treated as non-est in law since such a direction constitutes an error apparent on the face of record as it effectively overrides the express statutory bar of limitation prescribed under Section 421 of the Companies Act which does not confer any jurisdiction upon this Court to extend the period of limitation for filing an appeal before the NCLAT. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the Writ Petitioner had never intended to file the appeal before the NCLAT against the impugned Ext.P17 and P18 orders and had never prayed for any relief or extension of limitation period in Writ Appeal. This Court by granting 15 days time to file the appeal, would exceed the prescribed period to prefer an appeal by more than 250 days from the statutory limitation of 45 days as provided under Section 421. The provisions of Section 5 of the limitation Act cannot be invoked in such a situation. As such, the prayer has been made to recall the impugned judgment dated 09.06.2025.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the judgment passed by this Court in the case ofThomas Thomas & Another v. Kottayam Municipality and Another [ 2008 (4) KHC 26 ] to contend that provisions of Article 226 cannot be invoked to by-pass the statutory remedy especially when the statutory authority has no such power to condone such delay under the Limitation Act. If a special statute prescribes the period of limitation, the provisions of the Limitation Act will stand excluded as provided under Section 29(2) to that extent. Learned counsel also relied on judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case ofCommissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Hongo India Pvt.Ltd & Another [ (2009) 5 SCC 791 ] to contend that the courts cannot ignore the legislative intention and therefore, could not extend the limitation period by giving liberal interpretation. Therefore, the direction issued by this Court granting liberty to file an appeal by giving 15 days time is absolutely against the provisions of the Special Act. Therefore, Review Petition deserves to be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents opposed the prayer and submitted that this Court while passing the impugned j