Review petitions must demonstrate errors apparent on the face of the record; they cannot substitute appellate powers.

HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE BINOD KUMAR DWIVEDI th ON THE 28 OF JULY, 2025 REVIEW PETITION No. 339 of 2025 SMT. SUNITA SHARMA Versus MURALILAL SHARMA Appearance:

Shri Shivam Gaor, learned counsel appears through V.C. and Ms. Surbhi Shimpi, learned counsel for the petitioner. Dr. Vivek Pandey, learned counsel for the respondent.

ORDER Per: Justice Binod Kumar Dwivedi This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner for review of judgment and order dated 30.09.2024 passed in First Appeal No. 587/2007 whereby First Appeal filed by appellant-husband has been allowed and decree of divorce has been granted against the petitioner.

02. All the grounds taken in Review Petition has been considered while passing the impugned judgment. The grounds taken by the petitioner suggest that other view was also possible whereby different conclusion could have been arrived at, but these grounds cannot be raised in Review Petition which is governed by the provisions under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of CPC. The error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and it is beyond the scope of review. It is apt to refer the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Arundev Upadhyay vs.

Integrated Sales Service Limited 2023, (8) SCC 11 which runs as under:-

“31. Another case which may be briefly dealt with is Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [ Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi , (1997) 8 SCC 715] , where, this Court ruled that under Order 47 Rule 1CPC, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.It also observed that a review petition cannot be allowed to be treated as an appeal in disguise.

32. A series of decisions may also be referred to wherein, it has been held that power to review may not be exercised on the ground that decision was erroneous on merits as the same would be the domain of the court of appeal. Power of review should not be confused with appellate powers as the appellate power can correct all manners of errors committed by the subordinate courts.

The following judgments may be referred:

(1) Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab (2) Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma (3) Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (4) Uma Nath Pandey v. State of U.P.

33. Recently, this Court in a judgment dated 24-2- 2023 passed in S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan [ S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan , (2023) 13 SCC 515 : 2023 SCC OnLine SC 185], observed that even though a judgment sought to be reviewed is erroneous, the same cannot be a ground to review in exercise of powers under Order 47 Rule 1CPC. Further, in Perry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra [Perry Kansagra v.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: SOUMYA Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753] , this Court observed that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, the review court does not sit in appeal over its own order.

34. In another case between Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam SEB [Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam SEB, (2020) 2 SCC 677 : (2020) 2 SCC (Civ) 788] , this Court observed that scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114CPC is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It was further observed that an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record.

35. From the above, it is evident that a power to