Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Scanned Judgements…!
Review proceedings are distinct from original hearings and are limited to correcting manifest errors, not re-evaluating evidence or re-judging the case ["BOSCO LOUIS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"], ["Govind Khandelwal S/O Late Shri Chaturbhujdas Ji Khandelwal VS Suresh Khandelwal S/O Kanhaiyalal Khandelwal - Madhya Pradesh"], ["Sivakumar.G vs State of Kerala - Kerala"], ["HEMA PURUSHOTHAMAN vs UNION OF INDIA - Kerala"], ["FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs JASWANT LAL - Punjab and Haryana"], ["Gauri Shankar Indane Service Kuchaikote VS Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Patna"], ["Surjit Singh Arora VS Slum Rehabilitation Authority - Bombay"], ["PURUSOTTAM SWAIN vs STATE OF ODISHA - Orissa"], ["Banka Dei (Deceased) through LRs Rati Ram vs Watuli Devi - Himachal Pradesh"], ["Union Bank of India VS Additional District Magistrate, Meerut - Allahabad"], ["Brij Kumar Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"], ["Eliza Begum @ Eliza Khatun, D/o- Swahid Ali, W/O- Tamez Ali @ Tamer Ali vs Union Of India - Gauhati"], ["Bharati Bezbaruah, W/o. Late Biren Bezbaruah VS Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Gauhati"], ["Shafeeq Ahmed VS Managing Committee Mosque Bee Saheba - Telangana"], ["Vardhman Spinning and General Mills Ltd. vs Vijay Kumar - Himachal Pradesh"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
References:- ["BOSCO LOUIS vs STATE OF KERALA - Kerala"]- ["Govind Khandelwal S/O Late Shri Chaturbhujdas Ji Khandelwal VS Suresh Khandelwal S/O Kanhaiyalal Khandelwal - Madhya Pradesh"]- ["Sivakumar.G vs State of Kerala - Kerala"]- ["HEMA PURUSHOTHAMAN vs UNION OF INDIA - Kerala"]- ["FOOD CORPORATION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Vs JASWANT LAL - Punjab and Haryana"]- ["Gauri Shankar Indane Service Kuchaikote VS Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. - Patna"]- ["Surjit Singh Arora VS Slum Rehabilitation Authority - Bombay"]- ["PURUSOTTAM SWAIN vs STATE OF ODISHA - Orissa"]- ["Banka Dei (Deceased) through LRs Rati Ram vs Watuli Devi - Himachal Pradesh"]- ["Union Bank of India VS Additional District Magistrate, Meerut - Allahabad"]- ["Brij Kumar Singh VS State of U. P. - Allahabad"]- ["Eliza Begum @ Eliza Khatun, D/o- Swahid Ali, W/O- Tamez Ali @ Tamer Ali vs Union Of India - Gauhati"]- ["Bharati Bezbaruah, W/o. Late Biren Bezbaruah VS Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. - Gauhati"]- ["Shafeeq Ahmed VS Managing Committee Mosque Bee Saheba - Telangana"]- ["Vardhman Spinning and General Mills Ltd. vs Vijay Kumar - Himachal Pradesh"]
In the realm of Indian jurisprudence, filing a review petition can feel like a last resort after an unfavorable judgment. But is it always viable? The question often arises: review is maintainable where there is a patent error and where material evidence has not been considered. This blog post dives deep into this critical legal issue, exploring the grounds for maintainability, key precedents, and practical insights. Whether you're a litigant, lawyer, or simply curious about civil procedure, understanding these nuances can make all the difference.
We'll break down the core principles under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), Supreme Court Rules, and Article 137 of the Constitution, drawing from established case law. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice—consult a qualified attorney for your case.
Review petitions are not appeals in disguise. They serve a limited purpose: correcting glaring mistakes without re-hearing the entire case. Courts consistently outline three primary grounds for maintainability:
As held in precedents like Chhajju Ram v. Neki and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, the third ground mirrors the first two. Specifically, a patent error must be obvious and self-evident, not requiring detailed scrutiny. KRBL Ltd. VS PK Overseas Pvt. Ltd. - 2014 0 Supreme(Del) 1062 Review lies only for errors that undermine the order's soundness or cause miscarriage of justice, distinguishing it from appellate jurisdiction. VINAY SHARMA VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 709Union of India VS Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 401
A patent error is the cornerstone of review maintainability. It refers to glaring, manifest mistakes that are self-evident from the record—no fishing, search, or lengthy reasoning required. VINAY SHARMA VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 709Yashwant Sinha VS Central Bureau Of Investigation Through its Director - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1259Commissioner of Central Excise, Belapur, Mumbai VS RDC Concrete (India) P. Ltd. - 2011 0 Supreme(SC) 754
For instance, under Article 137 (read with Order 40 Rule 1, Supreme Court Rules), review corrects glaring omission or patent mistake due to judicial fallibility, especially in criminal matters. VINAY SHARMA VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 709MUKESH VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 704VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2017 5 Supreme 451 In non-criminal cases, it addresses obvious errors without re-appreciating evidence. Karnail Singh VS State of Haryana - 2024 0 Supreme(SC) 475Union of India VS Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. - 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 401
Additional sources reinforce this: Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. Ashok Bhatia vs Zonal Manager West - 2025 Supreme(MP) 547Debabrata Bera VS State Of West Bengal - 2018 Supreme(Cal) 784 A review court examines only if there's a patent error apparent on the face, not merits or reinterpretation of judgments. Managing Director, Indian Immunological Ltd. VS Narendra Agrawal - 2021 Supreme(Telangana) 263
Key traits of patent errors:- Must be easily located and self-evident.- Not minor or inconsequential.- Examples include direct contradictions or ignored binding precedents visible on the record.
Overlooking material evidence can ground a review, but only if it amounts to a patent error apparent on the face. Routine re-evaluation of evidence is off-limits—that's for appeals.
In a specific performance suit, ignoring vital handwriting expert opinions was deemed an error of law apparent on the face and a substantial question of law, making review maintainable. RAJPATI DEVI VS RAM sewak SINGH - 2005 0 Supreme(All) 579 The omission of considering material evidence, such as the opinions of experts, can give rise to a substantial question of law.
However, limitations apply:- Non-consideration must be self-evident, not requiring inference or fact-review. Ranjeet Singh VS Ravi Prakash - 2004 2 Supreme 582Government Of T. N. VS Rajapandian - 1994 0 Supreme(SC) 1058- Fresh material is allowed only if undiscoverable earlier with due diligence. S. Honnamma VS State of Karnataka - 2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 717- Courts emphasize: The error contemplated to be reviewed must be an error apparent on the face of the record and, not an error which has to be searched. Debabrata Bera VS State Of West Bengal - 2018 Supreme(Cal) 784
In practice, demonstrate omission via direct record quotes (e.g., page/index references) without re-weighing reliability. Appreciation of evidence belongs to appellate forums. VINAY SHARMA VS STATE OF NCT OF DELHI - 2018 0 Supreme(SC) 709VIKRAM SINGH @ VICKY WALIA VS STATE OF PUNJAB - 2017 5 Supreme 451Yashwant Sinha VS Central Bureau Of Investigation Through its Director - 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1259
Review jurisdiction is narrow. Common pitfalls include:
Cases like the dismissal in a partition suit highlight: Points not raised earlier or requiring elaboration don't qualify. Yesudian (Died) VS Mohison (Died) - 2015 Supreme(Mad) 1154 Similarly, in employment disputes, alleged mistakes needing reassessment were rejected as non-patent. Debabrata Bera VS State Of West Bengal - 2018 Supreme(Cal) 784
These illustrate courts' reluctance to expand review scope lightly.
To bolster a review petition:
Legal professionals: Emphasize self-evidence to avoid dismissal as 'appeal in disguise.' RAMJEE RAMAN VS BANARAS HINDU UNIVERSITY - 2011 Supreme(All) 2402 A review application is maintainable where there is an error apparent on the face of record.
A review petition may be maintainable for patent errors or overlooked material evidence if self-evident on the record, but courts guard against abuse. Focus on manifest injustices, not disagreements. Success hinges on precision and precedent.
Takeaways:- Patent = obvious, no search needed.- Material evidence omission must be glaring.- Not for re-hearing or minor slips.
This framework empowers informed decisions. For tailored advice, engage a legal expert. Stay legally savvy!
(Word count: ~1050. General insights based on cited precedents; laws evolve—verify current status.)
#ReviewPetition, #PatentError, #LegalReview
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. ... When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake ... It has not#HL_END....
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. ... Nagappa reported in 1955 SCR 250 this Court held that such error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v.....
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. ... When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petiti....
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. ... A perusal of the aforesaid provisions makes it clear that a review application is maintainable on any of the following grounds: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the applicant or....
(ii) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. ... The review jurisdiction is not exercisable on following grounds:- (i) Only a "patent error" and not a "mere wrong decision" can be said to be an error apparent on the face of record. ... (xi) Review is not#HL_....
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. ... The Hon’ble Court held that review is not an appeal in disguise and not to be exercised only to correct an error. The same would be maintainable only for co....
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. ... Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: (A) When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and ....
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. ... Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and impo....
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. ... But there must be cases in which even this test might break down, because judicial opinions also differ, and an error that might be considered by one Judge as self-evident might not be so #HL_....
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. ... But there must be cases in which even this test might break down, because judicial opinions also differ, and an error that might be considered by one Judge as self-evident might not be so #HL_....
A review Court is only required to examine if there is any patent error apparent on the face of the record that would need correction. In the guise of arguing a review application, a party cannot be permitted to enter upon the merits of the case and address arguments on the manner in which the judgment relied upon by it, have been interpreted by the Court.
The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
It is a well settled position of law that under the guise of arguing the review application, the points already agitated and urged in the appeal, cannot be re-agitated again. The review lies only for the patent error, where without any elaborate arguments, the error which on the face of it is to be pointed out.
Looking at from any angle, the Review Petition filed by the Petitioners is devoid of merits. Also that 'Review' will lie only when there is a patent error. In the present case on hand, there is no patent error when this Court has passed a well considered order while dismissing the Civil Revision Petition (MD) No.1185 of 2003 on 5/1/2011. Furthermore, this Court is of the considered view that under the garb of filing the present Review Petition, the Petitioners cannot make an Endeavour before this Court to treat the same as an Appeal in disguise.
A review application is maintainable where there is an error apparent error on the face of record. The Rules of the Court do not permit to review the order by which the correction application was rejected. When the Court did not find any error in its judgment, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief by review of such order.
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
