Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or preventing miscarriage of justice; it is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-argue the case or substitute a judicial view.

Heard on I.A. No. 11590/2025, which is an application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking review/recall of the order dated 19.11.2025.

Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the present Appeal was filed under section 96 of CPC along with an application under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC for grant of stay. On 10.09.2025, appeal was admitted for final hearing and on 25.09.2025. Further, the matter was heard on I.A. No 4860/2025, an application under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC for grant of stay and reserved for orders. He also argued that vide order dated 19.11.2025, stay application was rejected by this Court and on perusal of the order, it appears that the order passed on the interim application is in the nature of final judgment. It is reflected from the order that in operative paragraph i.e para 11, a finding has been recorded that ‘this Court finds no error in the Trial Court’s findings on title & possession.’ In view of such finding, nothing is remained to be adjudicated in the instant First Appeal and virtually, it amounts to dismissal of First Appeal. He further argued that the instant Appeal is an admitted appeal and never heard finally on merits, therefore, without hearing the appeal finally on merits, no such findings can be recorded while deciding an interim application. The finding recorded in the operative paragraph that ‘the appellant has no prima facie case’, such finding is contradictory as the appeal is an admitted appeal. It is further argued that the order in question was required to be decided within the purview of scope of Order XLI Rule 5 of C.P.C. It is also contended that the First Appeal is a valuable right of a litigant. If in an admitted First Appeal, no stay of execution is granted, the purpose of filing the appeal would be frustrated & the same would become infructuous. On these grounds, it is prayed that the present application be allowed and order dated 19.11.2025 be recalled and matter be heard again on application under Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC. It is also prayed that the order dated 19.11.2025 may kindly be modified to the extent that the possession part of the decree may be stayed subject to such conditions as deems appropriate.

To prop up the aforesaid submissions, reliance has been placed upon the several judgments rendered by the Apex Court as well as High Court in the cases of Shasidhar Vs. Ashwini Uma Mathad , (2015) 11 SCC 269, Santosh Hazari Vs. Purushottam Tiwari , 2001 (1) JLJ 401, Union of India & Others Vs. Kundan Rice Mills Limited, (2009) 1 SCC 553, Mohammadhanif Mohammadibrahim Patel & Others Vs. Pallaviben Rajendra Kumar Patel, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2526, Kamla Prasad Vs. Pt. Chandrashekhardutt decided in C.R. No. 731/1965 dated 25.03.1966, Mahesh Rajput Vs. Raja Udasi decided in M.P. No. 2427/2023, Rajaram Prasad Gupta and Another Vs. Ramchandra Prasad and Others , (2008) 10 SCC 796 and Mool Chand Yadav and Another Vs. Raza Buland Sugar Company Limited Rampur and Others , (1982) 3 SCC 484.

Shri A.K. Sethi, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent has opposed the prayer by submitting that the impugned order has been passed by considering each and every aspect of the matter and also following the provisions of Order XLI Rule 5 of CPC. The appeal was admitted as a matter of right, but it is not mandatory for the Court to also entertain the application under Section XLI Rule 5 of CPC

Shri Sachin Subnis, learned counsel for the respondent on Caveat has borrowed the argument so advanced by Shri Sethi, learned Senior Counsel. He has placed reliance upon the judgments rendered in the cases of Malleeswari Vs. K. Suguna & Another, 2025 INSC 1080, Heeralal & Others Vs. Shiv Kumar & Other, 2010 (1) MPWN 27, Ashrafi Devi Dead through Legal Heirs Vs. UP State , 2020 (1) MPLJ 254.

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the impugned order.

So far as the power of reviewing the order under Section XLVII Rule 1 of CPC is