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…!
Review lies only for correction of a manifest or patent error, not for re-evaluation of evidence or re-interpretation of facts Multiple sources emphasize that review petitions are limited in scope and cannot be used to revisit or reappreciate evidence, re-argue on merits, or reconsider conclusions already reached. The core principle is that review is permissible only for correcting errors that are apparent on the face of the record or for errors akin to such. For example, ["2022 0 Supreme(All) 1696"] states, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment, and ["2019 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2118"] notes, The appreciation of evidence/ materials on record... cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. Similarly, ["2019 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1159"] clarifies, review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.
Re-appreciation of evidence or re-interpretation of law is impermissible unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record The courts consistently hold that unless an error is evident and manifest, the appreciation of evidence or legal conclusions cannot be challenged in review. For instance, ["2019 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 960"] states, The appreciation of evidence/materials on record... cannot be assailed in a review petition, unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. This principle is reiterated across multiple judgments, such as ["2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 392"], ["2015 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 646"], and ["2019 0 Supreme(J&K) 374"], which emphasize that error apparent on the face of the record is the threshold for review, and re-argument or re-evaluation of evidence is outside its scope.
Review is not a rehearing or an appeal; it is limited to correcting patent or obvious errors The jurisprudence underscores that review is a limited remedy intended solely for correcting clear, manifest errors, not for re-assessing the merits of the case. As per ["2025 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 4386"], review only for patent error and cannot be used to convert a review into an appeal. The Supreme Court case cited in ["2015 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 646"] reinforces this, stating, a review cannot be claimed or asked for merely for a fresh hearing, or arguments, or correction of an erroneous view taken earlier.
Failure to demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record results in dismissal of review applications Most sources highlight that unless the petitioner shows a clear, manifest error on the record, the review petition is liable to be dismissed. For example, ["CLARIS vs ANTONY - Kerala"] notes, the review petitioners have miserably failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. Similarly, ["2015 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 646"] states, The review applicant has not shown any material error, manifest on the face of the order, emphasizing the limited scope of review.
Summary:The consistent legal principle across these judgments is that review is strictly limited to correcting patent or manifest errors on the face of the record. Re-evaluation of evidence, re-argument of issues, or reconsideration of conclusions already reached are impermissible in review proceedings. Only errors that are clear, obvious, and apparent without elaborate argument qualify for correction, reaffirming that review is not a substitute for appeal or rehearing.References: ["2022 0 Supreme(All) 1696"], ["2019 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 2118"], ["2019 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 1159"], ["2019 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 960"], ["2026 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 392"], ["2015 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 646"], ["CLARIS vs ANTONY - Kerala"], ["2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 946"], ["CLARIS vs ANTONY - Kerala"], ["CLARIS vs ANTONY - Kerala"], ["2019 0 Supreme(J&K) 374"], ["CLARIS vs ANTONY - Kerala"], ["CLARIS vs ANTONY - Kerala"], ["2015 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 646"], ["CLARIS vs ANTONY - Kerala"], ["CLARIS vs ANTONY - Kerala"], ["2018 0 Supreme(J&K) 869"], ["CLARIS vs ANTONY - Kerala"]
In the Indian judicial system, litigants often seek to challenge court orders they disagree with. However, courts have consistently held that review lies only for correction of a and that or re-consideration of conclusions already arrived at is impermissible. This principle safeguards while allowing correction of glaring mistakes. If you're wondering whether your case qualifies for review, this guide breaks down the legal boundaries, supported by key judgments.
Understanding these limits is crucial for lawyers, litigants, and legal professionals to avoid futile petitions. This article draws from established precedents to explain when review is viable and when it veers into impermissible territory.
The reviewed legal documents consistently establish that the scope of the power of review is strictly limited to correcting manifest errors on the face of the record. or reconsideration of conclusions already arrived at is generally impermissible in review proceedings. 2017 5 Supreme 451 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1259 2021 0 Supreme(All) 1533
These principles prevent review from becoming a , preserving efficiency in the justice system.
Review proceedings are designed solely for errors evident on the face of the record. As stated in a key judgment: Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in . 2017 5 Supreme 451 Similarly, The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. In the case of , the Court has laid down that mistake or error apparent on the face of record may require review. 2021 0 Supreme(All) 1533
This underscores that review targets —those obvious without delving into merits.
Most judgments explicitly bar re-evaluating evidence. It is not open to re-appreciate the evidence and to reach a different conclusion even if that is possible. 2004 2 Supreme 582 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 39 Echoing this, conclusions based on evidence cannot be challenged unless perverse or baseless. 2005 5 Supreme 599
From additional sources, Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error or for some reason akin thereto. 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 11344 2025 0 Supreme(HP) 629 This reinforces that arguing evidence appreciation converts review into an appeal, which is impermissible.
In arbitration contexts, re-appreciation is similarly restricted: or reinterpretation of the contract is impermissible. 2022 0 Supreme(Bom) 560 And under , review on merits of the dispute and are impermissible. 2019 0 Supreme(Mad) 375
Conclusions reached after evidence appreciation are generally final. The judgment, which is sought to be reviewed, might be a wrong judgment but the same would not stand within the ambit of being judgment which can be reviewed... as the scope of review cannot be extended to re-argue the matter. 2003 8 Supreme 429 Review is not for re-examining or re-arguing conclusions. 2013 0 Supreme(SC) 127
Courts have dismissed reviews for non-consideration of case laws unless manifesting error, noting Review is limited to correcting , not re-evaluating evidence or arguments already considered. This aligns with findings that mere disagreement is insufficient.
Review is permissible only for self-evident errors leading to . Errors needing deep analysis do not qualify. 2022 0 Supreme(All) 1696 2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 7
In , the is impermissible in . 2022 0 Supreme(Gau) 65 Even in criminal appeals, re-appreciation is limited to perverse conclusions. 2019 0 Supreme(All) 565
A review petition cannot rely on new arguments or judgments not previously cited; it must show error apparent on record.
When filing a review:- Clearly identify manifest errors apparent on the record.- Avoid re-arguing evidence or seeking different conclusions.- Recognize courts' reluctance for reviews based on differing views; focus on .
These steps increase success chances while respecting jurisdictional bounds.
The consistent theme is review's limited role for . Key references:1. 2017 5 Supreme 451: Review only for undermining orders or causing miscarriage.2. 2019 0 Supreme(SC) 1259: Not an appeal; no re-appreciation unless obvious error.3. 2021 0 Supreme(All) 1533: Confined to manifest errors, no re-examination.4. 2025 0 Supreme(Gau) 39: Cannot re-appreciate evidence.5. 2025 0 Supreme(Ori) 7: Errors apparent on record; no re-argument.
Additional cases like 2024 Supreme(Online)(DEL) 11344 and
affirm evidence conclusions are beyond review absent apparent errors.
In summary, Indian courts affirm that review lies only for correction of a , barring or reconsideration of conclusions unless self-evident. This upholds finality while remedying injustices.
Key Takeaways:- Stick to obvious, record-apparent errors.- Treat review as error-correction, not appeal.- Consult legal experts for case-specific application—this is general information, not advice.
Disclaimer: This article provides general insights based on precedents and is not legal advice. Laws evolve; seek professional counsel for your situation.
Stay informed on judicial updates to navigate reviews effectively.
#ReviewPetition, #ManifestError, #IndianLaw
Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. ... It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise." ... Under Order XL Rule 1 of th....
Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence/materials and contentions of the parties, which were available on record, cannot be assailed in a review petition, unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. ... The appreciation of evidence/ materials on record, being fully within the domain of the appellate court, cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. ... The app....
Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence/materials and contentions of the parties, which were available on record, cannot be assailed in a review petition, unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. ... A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. The appreciation of #HL....
Re-appreciation of evidence, re- interpretation of statutory provisions, or re-argument on merits does not fall within the ambit of review jurisdiction unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 4. ... The Review Applicant has failed to demonstrate any clerical, arithmetical, or manifest error which goes to the root of the matter. 6. ... It is trite law that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to substitute one possible view with ....
Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence/materials and contentions of the parties, which were available on record, cannot be assailed in a review petition, unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. ... A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. The appreciation of #H....
Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. This Court in Kerala SEB v. ... It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to convertin....
Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. This Court, in Kerala State Electricity Board vs. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. ... We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of t....
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. ... is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its April/May, 2017, has raised three points for consideration of this Court, which warrant review/span ... in exercise of review jurisdiction.
The grounds raised in the Review Petition predominantly seek to re-appreciate the contentions and to arrive at a different conclusion than the one already arrived at. Even if two views are possible in a matter this Court cannot, in review, engage in such re appreciation as sought for. ... It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation#HL_EN....
Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed in a appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review ... The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that the record in criminal cases.
2. The present application under Section 114 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is filed by the petitioners seeking review of the judgment & order dated 20.02.2023 passed by this Court in FAO No. 5/2021 allowing the appeal. Arun Dev Choudhury, J. 1. Heard Mr. PP Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioners. Also heard Mr. R Rabha, learned counsel for the respondent. A review application must show a manifest error apparent on the face of the record; it cannot involve re-evaluation of evidence or differing conclusions.
Re-appreciation of evidence or reinterpretation of the contract is impermissible. To put it in a nutshell, Mr. Dada submitted that it is now well settled that the scope of judicial scrutiny under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act (as amended in 2015) is very limited. No interference with the Award is warranted if the view taken by the Tribunal is a plausible view.
The Apex court held that the re-appreciation of evidence is impermissible in judicial review. In Mecken Singh N. Marak(Supra), the Apex Court held that the punishment pursuant to the Departmental Enquiry unless shockingly disproportionate, is not subject to judicial interference and therefore, in such cases judicial review is extremely limited. It is held by the Apex Court that the bank officer committing misconduct for his personal ends and against the interest of the bank and the depositors must be dealt with iron hand without any leniency. The Judgment of the Apex Court ....
In the above mentioned case (Supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that re-appreciation of evidence is permissible only if trial court is shown to have committed an error of law or procedure and conclusions arrived at are perverse.
This is one of the parameters for judicial intervention under Section 34. As already noticed, review on merits of the dispute and re-appreciation of evidence are impermissible.
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
