The Supreme Court of India, in a judgment reinforcing the distinct boundaries of judicial powers, has held that a court cannot rehear a matter or sit in appeal of its own order under the guise of its review jurisdiction. A bench of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice S.V.N. Bhatti made the observation while setting aside a review order from the High Court of Judicature at Madras, which had recalled its earlier decision in an ancestral property dispute.
The Court’s decision centered on the fundamental limitations of the power of review under Section 114 and Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. Emphasizing that this power is strictly confined and not an alternative to an appeal, the bench stated, “The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible.” This principle, the Court noted, is an exception to the general rule that a judgment, once signed, should not be altered, and is therefore invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or correct grave errors.
Background of the Dispute
The case stemmed from a partition suit filed in 2000 by a son against his father for a share in ancestral properties. The son’s sister, Malleeswari (the appellant), was not made a party to the suit. In 2003, an ex-parte preliminary decree was passed. Subsequently, the father sold some properties to a third party, K. Suguna, and settled the remaining properties on his daughter, Malleeswari.
Following her father’s death, Malleeswari was brought on record as his legal heir. She then filed an application to amend the preliminary decree, claiming her independent right to a one-third share as a coparcener under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The trial court rejected her plea.
However, in a Civil Revision Petition, the High Court on September 23, 2022, ruled in Malleeswari’s favour. This order was then challenged by the purchaser, K. Suguna, in a review application. The High Court allowed the review, setting aside its own previous order on October 19, 2024, and remanding the matter for a fresh hearing. This review order was the subject of the appeal before the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Analysis of Review Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed analysis of the distinction between appellate and review powers. It found that the High Court, in its review order, had not confined itself to correcting a “mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.” Instead, it had engaged in a “reappreciation of the case and counter case of the parties,” which is the domain of an appellate court.
The judgment reiterated that an error must be patent and manifest to warrant a review, not one that requires a “long-drawn process of reasoning.” The Court cited its previous ruling in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, stating, “A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.”
Applying this test, the Supreme Court concluded that the High Court’s review order extended “far beyond the actual working out of prayers in a suit for partition” and thus “exceeded the jurisdiction of review by a court.”
As a result, the Supreme Court allowed Malleeswari’s appeal, setting aside the impugned review order. The High Court’s original order dated September 23, 2022, which recognized her right to seek a share, was restored. The trial court was directed to dispose of all pending applications within three months.
