Review under CPC should not be used to reargue settled issues; adequate grounds must be shown for review.

The present Review Petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule I read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, seeking review of the judgment dated 25.08.2025 passed in WA No.1455/2020 whereby the Writ Appeal filed by the State was allowed by this Court, thereby setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Review Petitioner was the respondent in the Writ Appeal. While allowing the Writ Appeal, this Court has passed the following order:

“10. Even though the respondent might have been relieved on the same day i.e. 24.11.2018, no benefit can be extended to him since the benefit is contemplated only for those persons who were in service as on the date of that order i.e. 24.11.2018 and that the respondent continued only on the basis of the said order. Therefore, he cannot claim any benefit. In any case, the term of the respondent expired on

09.11.2016. Therefore, if the term of the substantial post itself is over, the respondent could not have been continued on the additional charge. However, he continued till fresh appointments were made, in the light of the interim order passed by this Court. Be that as it may, since the new incumbent had joined and taken over charge at 10 a.m on 24.11.2018, it cannot be said that the respondent was continuing in service. The respondent was never appointed as Public Prosecutor to defend POCSO cases but was only given additional charge. Ext.P11 Government Order speaks about regular appointment of the Public Prosecutors. Moreover, while giving the respondent an additional charge of Public Prosecutor (POCSO cases), remuneration of Rs.10,000/- was fixed for discharging additional duties.

11. Paragraph 2(ii) of Ext.P11 Government Order dated 24.11.2018 specifically provides that the Special Public Prosecutors appointed in the courts constituted to try and decide cases under the NDPS/SC/ST/POCSO/Abkari Laws will be getting salary of Rs.60,000/- (consolidated) per month. The respondent in this case was holding the substantive post of Additional Government Pleader. Therefore, giving additional charge of Special Public Prosecutors would not amount to appointment. Learned Single Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent is a person who was in service as on 24.11.2018.

In view of the aforesaid, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside.

The writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.”

Being aggrieved, the petitioner herein filed the present Review Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an apparent error on the face of the impugned judgment and therefore, the same is liable to be reviewed. The petitioner was nonsuited on two grounds:

(1) The petitioner was not appointed as Special Public Prosecutor to defend POCSO cases but was only given additional charge.

(2) The petitioner was only holding the substantive post of Additional Government Pleader and giving additional charge of Special Public Prosecutor could not amount to an appointment. It was also held that a new incumbent joined at 10 a.m. on 24-11-2018.

On these grounds, the judgment passed in Writ Appeal needs to be reviewed.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of record so as to entertain this Review Petition. The learned counsel contended that, according to the Attendance Register filed by the Petitioner herein at Annexure A1, it can be very well seen that the petitioner had already handed over the charge in the forenoon of 24.11.2018 and also the new i