AI Overview...
- Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC - Main points and insights
- Provides the legal framework for seeking review of judgments under specific circumstances, such as discovery of new evidence or errors apparent on the face of the record Chief Administrative Officer VS State of Karnataka - Karnataka, State Of Assam VS Sikha Das Gupta (Roy) - Gauhati, SABU. M.K vs MAJEED. V.P - Kerala.
- The rule emphasizes limited grounds for review, primarily focusing on errors apparent, new evidence, or other substantial grounds that could not have been considered earlier A. A. Enterprises Represented by its Partner S. S. Ashok VS Tektronix (India) Pvt. Ltd. , Authroized Representative and Business Controller Mohan Ramanujam - Karnataka, STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs SUDHAKARAN P ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KASARAGOD - Kerala, Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. VS Ruhul Amin Son of Gajibar Rahman - Gauhati.
- Courts have clarified that review is not a re-hearing of the case but a process to correct manifest errors or consider new evidence under strict conditions SADHU SINGH VS STATE - Allahabad, THE BRANCH MANAGER MICRO OFFICE, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs HULIGEMMA SINCE DEAD BY L.R'S - Karnataka.
- The doctrine of merger and principles established in precedent judgments restrict the scope of review, emphasizing that review petitions are not avenues for re-evaluation of the entire case or re-arguing issues A. A. Enterprises Represented by its Partner S. S. Ashok VS Tektronix (India) Pvt. Ltd. , Authroized Representative and Business Controller Mohan Ramanujam - Karnataka, SABU. M.K vs MAJEED. V.P - Kerala.
-
Courts generally dismiss review petitions if they do not meet the criteria under Order XLVII Rule 1, such as lack of error apparent on the record or absence of new evidence STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs SUDHAKARAN P ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KASARAGOD - Kerala, THE BRANCH MANAGER MICRO OFFICE, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs HULIGEMMA SINCE DEAD BY L.R'S - Karnataka.
-
Analysis and Conclusion
- Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is a restrictive provision intended to prevent frivolous or unnecessary re-litigation of judgments.
- The main grounds for review include discovering new evidence, errors apparent on the face of the record, or other exceptional circumstances.
- Courts consistently reaffirm that review is not an appellate remedy and should be exercised sparingly, with a focus on correcting manifest errors or preventing miscarriage of justice.
- The rule underscores the importance of finality in judgments while allowing limited correction in exceptional cases Chief Administrative Officer VS State of Karnataka - Karnataka, State Of Assam VS Sikha Das Gupta (Roy) - Gauhati, SABU. M.K vs MAJEED. V.P - Kerala.
References:
- Chief Administrative Officer VS State of Karnataka - Karnataka, SABU. M.K vs MAJEED. V.P - Kerala, A. A. Enterprises Represented by its Partner S. S. Ashok VS Tektronix (India) Pvt. Ltd. , Authroized Representative and Business Controller Mohan Ramanujam - Karnataka, State Of Assam VS Sikha Das Gupta (Roy) - Gauhati, STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM vs SUDHAKARAN P ASSISTANT MOTOR VEHICLES INSPECTOR, REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICE, KASARAGOD - Kerala, Krishan Chand Ganesh Dass Vinay Kumar and Company VS Union Territory, Chandigarh - Punjab and Haryana, Assam Power Distribution Company Ltd. VS Ruhul Amin Son of Gajibar Rahman - Gauhati, SADHU SINGH VS STATE - Allahabad, THE BRANCH MANAGER MICRO OFFICE, UNITED INDIA INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs HULIGEMMA SINCE DEAD BY L.R'S - Karnataka
Search Results for "Order Xlvii Rule 1 of Cpc Judgments"
2023 0 Supreme(Kar) 1082 • India - Karnataka
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
REVIEW - Writ Petition Review - Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - The court discussed the provisions of Order XLVII ... Rule 1 of the CPC, which allows for the review of judgments under specific circumstances, such as the discovery of new evidence ... court's decision was influenced by the need to ensure that all parties were heard, leading to a limited review of the previous order ... #H....
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 50434 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
C. PRATHEEP KUMAR, J
The appellant sought to correct the judgment dated 5.3.2025 under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, claiming no delay in filing, which was ... J U D G M E N T Dated this the 30th day of May, 2025 This is a petition filed by the appellant under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC praying for correcting a mistake that crept in ... the judgment dated 5.3.2025. ... In the said judgment#HL_E....
2011 0 Supreme(Kar) 119 • India - Karnataka
ASHOK B.HINCHIGERI
XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, the doctrine of merger, and the principles established in various judgments, including the need for an error ... Review Petition - Delay in filing review petition - Order 47 Rule 1(a) - CPC - Section 114 r/w Order XLVII Rule 1 - Doctrine of ... Ratio Decidendi: The Court's decision was influenced by the limited scope for reviewing an #HL_ST....
2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 1464 • India - Gauhati
KALYAN RAI SURANA
the provisions of Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC, which govern the grounds for review of judgments. ... REVIEW - Writ Petition for Salary Payment - Section 114 CPC, Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - The court discussed ... Issues: Whether the judgment dated 16.06.2016 was vitiated by fraud or whether subsequent findings regarding ... The provision of #HL_....
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 48893 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, SYAM KUMAR V.M., JJ
This review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1, Section 114 of the CPC seeks to review the judgement dated 26.06.2025, which set aside ... However, the Court found no apparent error justifying a review under the established parameters of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. ... It reaffirmed that review processes are not avenues for re-evaluating verdicts, with reference to pertinent judgments including S ... T....
2014 0 Supreme(P&H) 387 • India - Punjab and Haryana
SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, MAHAVIR S.CHAUHAN
-Scope of--Review of a judgment or an order could be sought : (a) from the discovery of new and important matters or evidence which ... (A) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.47 R.1--Review--Scope of--Held; ... ... (Paras 25 & 31) ... (B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908, O.47 R.1--Review- ... Review application, when tested on the touchstone of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and th....
2017 0 Supreme(Gau) 1034 • India - Gauhati
A.K.GOSWAMI
Review Petition - Compensation for Electrocution of Buffaloes - Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - Haridas Das vs Smt. ... Ratio Decidendi: The Court applied Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and considered the limitations to the exercise of the power of review ... as established in previous judgments such as Haridas Das vs Smt. ... Order XLVII Rule 1#HL....
1961 0 Supreme(All) 60 • India - Allahabad
D.P.UNIYAL, T.RAMABHADRAN
The High Court does not possess an inherent power to review its judgment on grounds analogous to Order XLVII, Rule 1, of the Code ... Section 369 CrPC, which deals with the alteration or review of judgments or orders, does not apply to appellate judgments of the ... of Civil Procedure (CPC). 4. ... C. did not include power to review its judgment on grounds analogous to Order XLVII#HL_EN....
2021 Supreme(Online)(KER) 43020 • India - High Court of Kerala
V. G. Arun, J
Review - Writ Petition - Kerala Forest Act - Section 22(3)(f), Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC - The court considered the principles of ... judicial review and established that subsequent judgments cannot be grounds for review unless they constitute an error apparent ... Ratio Decidendi: The court held that while subsequent judgments typically do not ground a review, exceptional circumstances ... Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 #HL_ST....
2025 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 14841 • India - Karnataka High Court
S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR, G BASAVARAJA, JJ
Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC , as held in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court. 8. In view of the foregoing reasons, the review petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. ... (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC , it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.” ... JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA) This Review Petition is fi....
Filter by Legal Phrase
