A review petition under S.114 and O.47 R.1 of the CPC is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-argue or re-appreciate evidence on merits; it is maintainable only for patent errors apparent on the face of the record.

ORDER

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioners in W.P(C)No.9148 of 2025 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short), pleading that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 23.05.2025 passed by a Division Bench of this Court, in which one among us [Muralee Krishna S., J.] was sitting along with Amit Rawal, J., by which the writ petition was dismissed. Since Amit Rawal, J., demitted office, this review petition is listed before this Bench, as per the roster.

2. The petitioners filed this review petition with a delay of 252 days. By the order dated 10.03.2026, we condoned the said delay and listed the review petition for consideration.

3. Heard Sri.T.C. Krishna, the learned Central Government Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners and Sri.Ratheesh. B, the learned counsel for the respondent.

4. The learned Senior Panel Counsel for the petitioners would submit that the respondent was discharged from service at his own request. The Release Medical Board assessed his disability at 20% for three years, since the respondent was diagnosed with Type II Diabetes Mellitus. The entitlement for disability element of pension by the respondent is only if the illness was attributable to military service. Since the Release Medical Board found that the illness of the respondent was not attributable to military service, the finding in the impugned judgment of this Court, in tune with the finding of the Tribunal, is an error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Senior Panel Counsel vehemently submitted that the burden is upon the respondent to prove that the illness suffered by him is attributable to military service, especially when the opinion of the Release Medical Board is otherwise. The learned Senior Panel Counsel submitted that the percentage of disability reckoned as 50% by this Court is also an error, since the aforesaid rounding was implemented by virtue of Annexure A2 notification dated 23.01.2018 with effect from 01.01.2016, whereas the respondent was discharged in the year 2000.

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent would submit that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment. The learned counsel vehemently submitted that the position pertaining to disability attributable to service conditions is settled by the judgment of the Apex Court in Dharamvir Singh v. Union of India [(2013) 7 SCC 316] and also the case of rounding off of the percentage of disability by the judgment of the Apex Court in Sukhvinder Singh v. Union of India [(2014) 14 SCC 364]. This Court passed the judgment in the writ petition by relying on the above judgments of the Apex Court, and the attempt of the petitioners is to reagitate the issue by using the review jurisdiction as an appeal in disguise.

6. In order to understand the circumstances that entitle the court to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions concerned as well as the law on the point laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court, as well as this Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court is concerned.

7.Section 114 of the CPC reads thus:

“114. Review Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the orde