Judgment / Order

Reportable

1. The present review petition has been filing assailing the order dated 26.02.2026, passed by this Court, in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9435/2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by the petitioner came to be dismissed. This Court, while dismissing the writ petition, held that the learned trial Court had correctly framed the issues and that no necessity arose for framing any additional issues under Order 14 Rule 5 read with Section 151 CPC.

2. Learned petitioner submits that initially six issues were framed by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, the learned trial Court re-framed the issues vide order dated 10.03.2025 pursuant to the order dated 11.05.2023 passed by this Court. However, alleging that certain material issues were still not framed, the petitioner again approached this Court by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9435/2025, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 26.02.2026. Learned petitioner contends that the order dated 26.02.2026 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record and, therefore, warrants interference in exercise of review jurisdiction.

3. Heard and perused the material available on record.

4. While examining the validity of the impugned order in the context of review jurisdiction, it is necessary for this Court to bear in mind certain settled and fundamental principles governing such jurisdiction. The power of review is not inherent in a Court; rather, it must be expressly conferred by statute. It is not a forum for rehearing the matter or re-agitating issues already decided on merits. In civil proceedings, the exercise of review jurisdiction is regulated by Section 114 read with Order 47 CPC, and the Court must be satisfied that the conditions prescribed therein are strictly fulfilled before invoking such power. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati; (2013) 8 SCC 320 has succinctly observed that:

“19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.”

(emphasis Supplied)

4.1 In light of the aforesaid settled position, this Court considers it appropriate to reproduce Order 47 Rule 1 CPC hereinbelow for ready reference:

“1. Application for review of judgment.—

(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,

and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.”

4.2 To put it plainly, Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC provides three grounds for review:

1) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced by the applicant at the time when the decree was passed, or order made; or

2) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or

3) for any other sufficient reason, which must be analogous to either of the aforesaid grounds.

4.3 It is a settled principle of law that rehearing of a matter is impermissible under the guise of review. The power of review constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it ought not to be altered. In Lily Thomas v. Union of India; AIR 2000 SC 1650, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the power of review can be exercised only for correction of an apparent error and not for substituting a new view. Such power