Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Scope of Review - Strict Limitation The review jurisdiction is strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. It is not an appellate process and cannot be used to re-examine or re-argue merits, facts, or issues already decided. The review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record or errors akin thereto ["Banka Dei (Deceased) through LRs Rati Ram vs Watuli Devi - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Brij Kumar Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["A.CHANDRAKUMARAN NAIR vs THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION - Kerala"], ["BOSCO LOUIS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["SAJID PASHA vs ABDUNNASIR P. - Kerala"], ["Annapurna Dash vs Sabitri Dash - Orissa"], ["Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack vs Malaya Ranjan Dash - Orissa"], ["Kshitish Bardhan Chunilal Nath VS Tata Chemicals - Calcutta"], ["Sivakumar.G vs State of Kerala - Kerala"].
Contradictory Findings and Errors The courts have emphasized that even if findings are contradictory or appear inconsistent, such issues are generally not correctable in review unless they reveal an error apparent on the record. For example, a contradiction cannot be corrected through review if it is a matter of reappraisal of evidence or merits, which falls outside review's scope ["GABHAJI LILAJI VS VORA SAIYADBHAI KADARBHAI - Gujarat"], ["Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. vs Jayaram Behera Son of Late Bhajani Behera - Orissa"].
Rehearing and Re-argument Prohibition Review proceedings are not a rehearing or an appeal; they cannot be used to re-argue points already settled or to challenge the correctness of the decision on merits. The courts have repeatedly held that review is not meant for correcting erroneous decisions based on merits but only for correcting patent errors or errors on the face of the record ["Ramanjinappa R., S/o. Pujari Ramaiah vs Raja, S/o Late R. Nagaraj - Karnataka"], ["Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack vs Malaya Ranjan Dash - Orissa"], ["BOSCO LOUIS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"].
Judicial Precedents and Clarifications The Supreme Court and High Courts have clarified that review is a limited, error-correcting process. For instance, in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, it was held that review proceedings are not an appeal and must be confined to errors apparent on the record ["Banka Dei (Deceased) through LRs Rati Ram vs Watuli Devi - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Brij Kumar Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]. Similarly, in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P., the Court stated that review cannot extend to examining the correctness or reasonableness of a decision, only to errors apparent on the record ["A.CHANDRAKUMARAN NAIR vs THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION - Kerala"].
Main Point & Conclusion The main insight across the sources is that a judgment that appears contradictory or contains an apparent error cannot be corrected in review unless such contradiction or error is clear, patent, and visible on the face of the record. The review process is not an appellate remedy to correct errors of law or fact but a narrow mechanism to rectify patent, obvious mistakes. Therefore, if a judgment is contradicted or appears inconsistent, such issues are generally outside the scope of review unless they reveal an error apparent on the record ["Banka Dei (Deceased) through LRs Rati Ram vs Watuli Devi - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Brij Kumar Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["A.CHANDRAKUMARAN NAIR vs THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION - Kerala"].
References:["Banka Dei (Deceased) through LRs Rati Ram vs Watuli Devi - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Brij Kumar Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["A.CHANDRAKUMARAN NAIR vs THE EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANIZATION - Kerala"], ["BOSCO LOUIS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["Ramanjinappa R., S/o. Pujari Ramaiah vs Raja, S/o Late R. Nagaraj - Karnataka"], ["Odisha Lift Irrigation Corporation Ltd. vs Jayaram Behera Son of Late Bhajani Behera - Orissa"], ["SAJID PASHA vs ABDUNNASIR P. - Kerala"], ["Registrar General of the Hon'ble High Court of Orissa, Cuttack vs Malaya Ranjan Dash - Orissa"], ["Kshitish Bardhan Chunilal Nath VS Tata Chemicals - Calcutta"], ["Sivakumar.G vs State of Kerala - Kerala"], ["GABHAJI LILAJI VS VORA SAIYADBHAI KADARBHAI - Gujarat"]
In the realm of Indian jurisprudence, judicial review serves as a critical safeguard for ensuring fair decision-making by administrative bodies and lower courts. However, a common point of contention arises: judgment is contradictory to finding scope in review. This phrase captures scenarios where courts venture beyond their limited mandate, such as re-evaluating evidence or substituting findings, rather than focusing solely on procedural errors or legality. Understanding this distinction is vital for litigants, lawyers, and anyone navigating review petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution or Order XLVII of the CPC. This post breaks down the principles, exceptions, and implications, drawing from key judgments. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice; consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Judicial review is not an appeal on merits. Courts are generally confined to examining the decision-making process and procedural fairness, not the substantive findings or conclusions themselves. As established in multiple precedents, review does not empower courts to reappreciate evidence or substitute their own views unless there's a manifest error, perversity, or violation of natural justice. State Of Rajasthan VS Mohammed Ayub Naz - 2006 1 Supreme 37Govt. of A. P. VS Mohd. Nasrullah Khan - 2006 1 Supreme 569EX CONSTABLE PARRMAR MAHENDRA KUMAR KONABHAI Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 221
Key limitations include:- Assessing procedural fairness and legal errors only, without re-evaluating factual findings. State Of Rajasthan VS Mohammed Ayub Naz - 2006 1 Supreme 37Govt. of A. P. VS Mohd. Nasrullah Khan - 2006 1 Supreme 569- No substitution of findings unless the original decision is perverse or based on no evidence. State Of Rajasthan VS Mohammed Ayub Naz - 2006 1 Supreme 37Govt. of A. P. VS Mohd. Nasrullah Khan - 2006 1 Supreme 569- Review is not an appeal; it must stick to errors apparent on the face of the record. DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, NORTHERN RAILWAY VS SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 632Kamta Prasad 8163 (M/B)2013 VS State of U. P. Throu. Prin. Secy. Housing Lko. - 2015 0 Supreme(All) 2598
The Supreme Court in B.C. Chaturvedi emphasized: courts must not act as appellate authorities during judicial review. State Of Rajasthan VS Mohammed Ayub Naz - 2006 1 Supreme 37
A judgment becomes contradictory to the scope of review when it oversteps into appellate territory. This happens typically by:- Reappreciating evidence or re-examining facts without proving perversity. State Of Rajasthan VS Mohammed Ayub Naz - 2006 1 Supreme 37- Overturning findings without basis in procedural irregularity or no evidence. Govt. of A. P. VS Mohd. Nasrullah Khan - 2006 1 Supreme 569- Treating review as a rehearing on merits, ignoring the narrow confines under Articles 226/227. EX CONSTABLE PARRMAR MAHENDRA KUMAR KONABHAI Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 221
For instance, if a court dissects evidence afresh or imposes its own conclusions, it deviates from principles like those in AIR 2001 SC 1692, where such reappreciation was critiqued as beyond scope. State Of Rajasthan VS Mohammed Ayub Naz - 2006 1 Supreme 37 This misalignment signals a potential ground for higher challenge, as it contravenes the core tenet that findings based on evidence are binding absent patent flaws. State Of Rajasthan VS Mohammed Ayub Naz - 2006 1 Supreme 37
The framework is robustly outlined in several decisions:- Judicial review under Articles 226/227: Limited to fairness, natural justice, procedural illegality, or manifest error—no re-examination of facts. State Of Rajasthan VS Mohammed Ayub Naz - 2006 1 Supreme 37Govt. of A. P. VS Mohd. Nasrullah Khan - 2006 1 Supreme 569EX CONSTABLE PARRMAR MAHENDRA KUMAR KONABHAI Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 221- Not an appellate remedy: Courts cannot correct factual errors or reweigh evidence. State Of Rajasthan VS Mohammed Ayub Naz - 2006 1 Supreme 37Govt. of A. P. VS Mohd. Nasrullah Khan - 2006 1 Supreme 569- Error must be apparent: As per Kamlesh Verma, review jurisdiction summarizes to patent errors, not reasoned differences of opinion. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs JASWANT LAL - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8580
In B.C. Chaturvedi, the Supreme Court held that judicial review is confined to procedural and legal errors, not merits. State Of Rajasthan VS Mohammed Ayub Naz - 2006 1 Supreme 37 Similarly, the power of review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. Arun Dev Upadhyaya VS Integrated Sales Service Ltd. - 2023 5 Supreme 307
Other sources reinforce: Review of judgments or orders by Supreme Court – Supreme Court would have power to review any judgment or order... subject to... error apparent on face of record. Arun Dev Upadhyaya VS Integrated Sales Service Ltd. - 2023 5 Supreme 307 This underscores that long-drawn reasoning isn't permitted; the error must strike immediately upon review. Arun Dev Upadhyaya VS Integrated Sales Service Ltd. - 2023 5 Supreme 307
Broader case law echoes these bounds:- In a trademark dispute, the court clarified: The scope of review jurisdiction is narrow... errors to be apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason. The impugned order didn't warrant interference as it stayed within limits. Wockhardt Limited, Mumbai VS Apex Laboratories Limited, Chennai - 2023 Supreme(Mad) 2526- Review petitions were dismissed where arguments sought merit re-examination: essential points... have not been considered nor any #HL_STA.... but fell outside review contours. Arun Dev Upadhyaya VS Integrated Sales Service Ltd. - 2023 5 Supreme 307- The scope of review is for review of 'error apparent' only and not to review the judgment/order, even if... erroneous. Review cannot reopen decided contentions. PAWAN KR. GUPTA VS CHANDRA ASSOCIATES PRIVATE LIMITED - 2016 Supreme(Del) 828- Even in arbitration under Section 11, review isn't inherent: A power of review is not necessarily an inherent power - Such a power has to be conferred by law. Narendra Nath Panda VS Union of India - 2007 Supreme(Ori) 570- The scope of review does not provide an opportunity of an extra appeal... only to correct the mistakes which are apparent on the face of the record. Richhpal Singh VS Karnel Singh - 2007 Supreme(Raj) 670
These align seamlessly: deviation into facts or merits creates the contradiction in question.
While strict, exceptions exist to prevent injustice:- Perversity or no evidence: Courts may interfere if findings shock the conscience or lack evidentiary basis. State Of Rajasthan VS Mohammed Ayub Naz - 2006 1 Supreme 37- Manifest error on record: Patent mistakes qualify, but not debatable opinions. DIVISIONAL SUPERINTENDENT, NORTHERN RAILWAY VS SECOND ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE - 1997 0 Supreme(All) 632- Procedural violations: Breaches of natural justice allow scrutiny. EX CONSTABLE PARRMAR MAHENDRA KUMAR KONABHAI Vs THE UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. - 2025 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 221
However, even when judgment is erroneous the scope of review is not attracted. Richhpal Singh VS Karnel Singh - 2007 Supreme(Raj) 670 These carve-outs are narrow, ensuring review doesn't morph into appeal.
For practitioners:- Scrutinize judgments for overreach: Does it reappraise evidence? State Of Rajasthan VS Mohammed Ayub Naz - 2006 1 Supreme 37- Adhere strictly in drafting: Clarify jurisdictional limits to avoid future contradictions.- Higher appeals: Flag deviations citing B.C. Chaturvedi or similar. State Of Rajasthan VS Mohammed Ayub Naz - 2006 1 Supreme 37
Courts should emphasize: Hearing of review does not mean giving one more chance for rehearing matter already disposed of. Richhpal Singh VS Karnel Singh - 2007 Supreme(Raj) 670
In conclusion, a judgment contradictory to review scope typically oversteps by delving into facts, clashing with precedents like B.C. Chaturvedi. State Of Rajasthan VS Mohammed Ayub Naz - 2006 1 Supreme 37 This principle upholds judicial efficiency. For tailored guidance, seek professional advice.
References (select excerpts):1. State Of Rajasthan VS Mohammed Ayub Naz - 2006 1 Supreme 37: B.C. Chaturvedi principles.2. Govt. of A. P. VS Mohd. Nasrullah Khan - 2006 1 Supreme 569: Procedural confines.3. FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs JASWANT LAL - 2025 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 8580: Review vs. appellate power.4. Arun Dev Upadhyaya VS Integrated Sales Service Ltd. - 2023 5 Supreme 307: Error on face of record.
#JudicialReview, #ReviewScope, #LegalPrinciples
Learned Trial Court held that the plea of adverse possession by the defendant was established which finding was reversed by the learned Appellate Court in para-21 by holding that the defendant had taken the contradictory pleas of adverse possession and the ownership by way of purchase. ... to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. ... The pleas taken by the petitioners/defendants are in the nature of an appeal against the judgment passed by this Court and do not refer to the errors apparent on the face of the record....
While discussing the scope and ambit to review its judgments and in the course of discussing the contours of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC in case of Lily Thomas, the Apex Court held: “54. ... Aribam Pishak Sharma this Court once again held that 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. 9. ... The core argument advanced by the learned Counsel for the Applicant is that this court erred in law in....
The attempt is only to reagitate the matter on merits, and no scope for a review is made out. The learned counsel thus prayed for the dismissal of the Review Petition. ... It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.6 Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. ... The next contention put forth by the petitioners is that the finding in the judgment that EPF Act does not provide or contemplate any retrospect....
That the scope of review is not rehearing on merits, and the appellate court merely corrected the trial Court's erroneous finding on issue No.1 Reliance is placed on the following decisions : [(1995) 1 SCC 170] , that the review proceedings, not an appeal, confined strictly to the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. ... It is well settled that the 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....
Assuming that the finding was contradictory it cannot be corrected in exercise of the review jurisdiction. It may be an error no doubt and it can be corrected by a higher court in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction. ... R. 326 considered the scope and width of the power of review under sec. 17 (1) of the Bombay Act as applicable in the State of Gujarat. S. H. ... In the review application the learned Member found that there was an error apparent on the face of the record in two res....
Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. ... The principles set out as regards scope and extent of review jurisdiction in various judicial precedents may be summarized as follows:- A. ... The principles as regards the scope and extent of review jurisdiction of the Court, have been summarized by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. ... of the decree passed or order ma....
Before proceeding to deal with the arguments on merits of the review petitions, it would be appropriate to briefly comment on the scope of review. 8.1. ... In the above backdrop of the scope of review to which these petitions are confined, we proceed to consider whether a case for review is made out or not. 17. ... Salve submitted that essential points in the submissions made on behalf of the Review Petitioner before this Court have not been considered nor any #HL_STA....
Mohan assailed the impugned order on the ground that the scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and that appellate jurisdiction was erroneously exercised while issuing the impugned order. He invited my attention to the judgment of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Meera Bhanja v. ... 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.” ... After recording such finding, Mr.Arun C.Mohan contended that ther....
However, it may be noted that neither Order 47 CPC nor Order 47 of the Supreme Court Rules limits the remedy of review only to the parties to the judgment under review. ... Such fact having been considered in the writ appeal, there is no scope for this Court to entertain this review petition. 6.4. ... Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; b. ... If on appreciation of the evidence pro....
The judgment under Review: 42. Keeping in view the aforesaid principles of the exercise of the review jurisdiction and its scope, we now proceed to consider the scope of the review in the present case with respect to the judgment under review. ... Analysis: Scope of Review: 22. ... However, before proceeding further, to consider if the judgment under review suffers or not on any....
7. The scope of review of the judgment is well-known. In State of Jammu and Kashmir v. R.K. Zalpuri and others, AIR 2016 SC 3006, the apex Court held thus:-
Therefore, the scope for a review of the judgment is practically less, if not nil. Nor is it stated therein that we had no material to find so.
The scope of review is for review of "error apparent" only and not to review the judgment/order, even if the parties are in a position to satisfy the court that the order under review is an erroneous." Further, the contentions raised and decided in main proceedings, cannot be re-opened/ re-agitated under the guise of review petition.
Apart from that, this Court finds that in Laltech Engineering the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Patel Engineering could not be considered as the decision in Laltech Engineering was rendered on 1.9.2005 and the judgment in Patel Engineering was rendered on 26.10.2005. 14. Reliance was placed on a judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of Laltech Engineering Projects Pvt. Ltd. v. Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and another, reported in 2005 (Supp.) Arb.LR 163. The said judgment was confined to the scope of power of review. The question whether an order passed by the ....
It has been held that even when judgment is erroneous the scope of review is not attracted. The scope of review does not provide an opportunity of an extra appeal. The scope permits only to correct the mistakes which are apparent on the face of the record. (c) The scope of review is very limited and review is not a method of re-examination of a judgment. It does not even give any scope to the court to sit in appeal over the judgment pronounced by the same Court.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
