AI Overview...
Ingredients or Grounds of Review Petition
-
Lack of Valid Grounds / Failure to Satisfy Ingredients
Courts have consistently held that review petitions must meet specific criteria outlined under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. Multiple sources (e.g., SRI. VISHWANATH V.R. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs AKHILA BHARATA KSHATRIYA MAHASABHA (R) - Karnataka, SRI. SATHYA SHANTHA KUMAR vs SRI. JUNJAPPA D. | SRI SYED DAULATH | STATE OF KARNATAKA | DEPUTY COMMISSIONER | ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER | TAHASILDAR - Karnataka) emphasize that petitions are often dismissed for not demonstrating any error apparent on the face of the record or for not establishing valid grounds such as discovery of new evidence, mistake, or error in the judgment.
Analysis: Courts scrutinize whether the review petition raises genuine errors or merely reargues points already considered.
Conclusion: The primary ground for dismissing review petitions is the failure to establish valid ingredients as per Order XLVII Rule 1. -
Inadequacy of Grounds and Raising New Issues
Many review petitions are dismissed because they attempt to raise new issues or do not meet the essential ingredients for review (e.g., Rabindra Chandra Das VS Md Saifuddin Ahmed - Gauhati, M. Rajendran, Dean, IRT Perundurai Medical College & Hospital, Perundurai Sanatorium, Perundurai, Erode District VS M. Daisyrani - Madras, A.Dhanaraj vs A.Yogakumar Corera - Madras). Courts have noted that review is not an appeal and cannot be used to re-argue the case or introduce new evidence or issues.
Analysis: The grounds must be specific, such as error apparent on the record, not mere disagreement or fresh contentions.
Conclusion: Raising new issues or broad grounds without satisfying the criteria leads to dismissal. -
Error Apparent on the Record / Mistake or Error
Several sources (e.g., SRI. VISHWANATH V.R. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs AKHILA BHARATA KSHATRIYA MAHASABHA (R) - Karnataka, SRI. SATHYA SHANTHA KUMAR vs SRI. JUNJAPPA D. | SRI SYED DAULATH | STATE OF KARNATAKA | DEPUTY COMMISSIONER | ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER | TAHASILDAR - Karnataka) highlight that for a review to be entertained, there must be an error apparent on the face of the record, such as a patent mistake or oversight.
Analysis: Courts are reluctant to interfere unless such clear errors are demonstrated.
Conclusion: Absence of an error apparent on the record is a key reason for dismissing review petitions. -
Scope of Judicial Review and Interference
Judicial review is limited to specific grounds like procedural errors, violation of principles of natural justice, or errors on the face of the record (e.g., Kamlesh Goud VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh, DILIP SISODIA VS STATE OF M. P. - Madhya Pradesh, Arabinda Boro S/O Late Deben Boro Bensimari VS Union Of India - Gauhati). Courts decline to interfere at stages like pre-execution or charge-sheet unless these criteria are met.
Analysis: The scope is narrow; courts do not entertain review petitions based on mere dissatisfaction or re-evaluation of evidence.
Conclusion: The limited scope reinforces the importance of establishing clear grounds. -
Procedural and Formal Requirements
Proper adherence to procedural rules, such as filing within time, proper representation, and specific grounds, is essential. Non-compliance often results in dismissal (e.g., Arabinda Boro S/O Late Deben Boro Bensimari VS Union Of India - Gauhati, SRI. VISHWANATH V.R. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka).
Analysis: Courts emphasize procedural correctness alongside substantive grounds.
Conclusion: Failure to meet procedural requirements is a common reason for rejection.
Overall Summary:
Review petitions are dismissed primarily when they lack the essential ingredients specified under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, such as demonstrating an error apparent on the record, raising new issues, or establishing valid grounds like mistake or discovery of new evidence. Courts maintain a narrow scope for review, emphasizing that it is not an appeal and should not be used to re-argue cases or introduce new contentions. Procedural compliance and the demonstration of a clear error are crucial for the maintainability of review petitions.
References:
- SRI. VISHWANATH V.R. vs STATE OF KARNATAKA - Karnataka, Rabindra Chandra Das VS Md Saifuddin Ahmed - Gauhati, M. Rajendran, Dean, IRT Perundurai Medical College & Hospital, Perundurai Sanatorium, Perundurai, Erode District VS M. Daisyrani - Madras, Kamlesh Goud VS State of M. P. - Madhya Pradesh, DILIP SISODIA VS STATE OF M. P. - Madhya Pradesh, THE STATE OF KARNATAKA vs AKHILA BHARATA KSHATRIYA MAHASABHA (R) - Karnataka, A.Dhanaraj vs A.Yogakumar Corera - Madras, Arabinda Boro S/O Late Deben Boro Bensimari VS Union Of India - Gauhati, J. Selvaraj VS D. K. P. Vardharajan and Others - Madras
Search Results for "Ingredients or Grounds of Review Petition"
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 7495 • India - High Court of Karnataka
MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
Ultimately, the review petition was dismissed due to lack of valid grounds for its maintainability (para 5). ... , who failed to appear and substantiate claims in the review petition (para 2). ... This ruling analyzes the application of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC and the adequacy of grounds for review as raised by the party-in-person ... Be that as it may, no valid grounds are raised to fulfil the ingredients of Order XLVII Rule ....
2019 0 Supreme(Gau) 417 • India - Gauhati
KALYAN RAI SURANA
review petition. ... the review petition. ... The respondents countered that the essential ingredients for review were not met and that the petitioner was raising new issues in ... There are 50 grounds running to about 44 pages on which this review petition is filed. ... However, the grounds set forth for review are not leading to any inference that the ingredients to exercise #H....
2018 0 Supreme(Mad) 198 • India - Madras
S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
counsel on record - Thus, this Court is not inclined to consider any of the grounds raised in the present review petition - In view ... of the above discussions, the review petition is liable to be dismissed on merits, as well as on the ground that the review petition ... Application had not appeared in the writ petition, the review petitioner filed the present review petition on....
2021 0 Supreme(MP) 305 • India - Madhya Pradesh
SUJOY PAUL
charge-sheet - judicial review - 64(3), 64(2), 719(d), 47@20, 234@20 - The court discussed the limited grounds for interference ... Issues: Interference at the stage of charge-sheet, grounds for judicial review, veracity of charges Ratio Decidendi: ... Finding of the Court: The court declined interference, stating that necessary ingredients for interference at the charge-sheet ... In view whereof this petition is also dismissed with same observations. ... The reason why ordinarily ....
2021 0 Supreme(MP) 730 • India - Madhya Pradesh
SUJOY PAUL, ANIL VERMA
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition, stating that the necessary ingredients for interference at the pre-execution ... Fact of the Case: The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the detention ... The court declined to interfere at the pre-execution stage, stating that the necessary ingredients for interference were not available ... The sufficiency of ground of detention can not be subject-matter of judicial review. [9] The justi....
2025 Supreme(Online)(KAR) 6563 • India - High Court of Karnataka
MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM, J
The court concluded that the grounds for review were not met, consequently dismissing the petition. ... Upon review, the court found no error apparent justifying interference, emphasizing the need for the petitioner to pursue remedies ... On examination of the grounds urged, this Court is of the view that the ingredients of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC are not made out. 4. Review petition is accordingly dismissed. ... Upon a thorough examination of the ....
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 44645 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
S.M. SUBRAMANIAM, B.PUGALENDHI, JJ
... ... Result: Review Petition dismissed. ... the guise of a review - Grounds for review listed in various cases include discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error ... apparent on the face of the record, among others; emphasis that review cannot be an appeal in disguise - Review petition dismissed ... In many cases, across the country, it is held that where the grounds enumerated under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, is emine....
2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1439 • India - Gauhati
NELSON SAILO
Result: Review petition dismissed. ... (A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Review Petition - The petitioner challenged his termination from ... Referring to the grounds of the review petition Mr. P. J. ... He submits that the issues raised by the review petitioner and the grounds taken had already been considered by this Court. Further considering the limited scope of review and the basic ingredie....
1996 0 Supreme(Mad) 208 • India - Madras
ARUNACHALAM
INGREDIENTS - PROOF - BURDEN OF PROOF. ... - JUDICIAL REVIEW - HIGH COURT'S REVISIONAL JURISDICTION - SCOPE AND LIMITS - DEFAMATION - SECTION 500, INDIAN PENAL CODE - ESSENTIAL ... The first respondent filed a revision petition in the Sessions Court, challenging the Magistrate's order. ... The two grounds, on which the learned Sessions Judge had chosen to allow Crl. R. C. No. 71/91 cannot be upheld on any reasonable ground. ... Supreme Court found that there were specific allegations in the complaint di....
• India - Karnataka
urged in the review petition does not satisfy the ingredients of Order XLVII of CPC indicating any error apparent on face of the record. ... The learned Advocate General reiterating the grounds urged in the review petition would submit that the order under review suffers from error apparent on the face ... urged by the review petitioner in this petition. ... The captioned review petition i....
Filter by Legal Phrase
