Law Updates
Key Judicial Interpretation
The Supreme Court ruled that a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC cannot be used as an appeal and should not revisit issues already decided unless there is a clear error apparent on the face of the record. The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by treating the review petition as an appeal, which is impermissible.
Court’s View
The Supreme Court found that the High Court acted beyond its jurisdiction by allowing a review petition that essentially re-argued the original case. The court emphasized that review powers are limited and cannot be used to correct supposed errors unless they are manifestly apparent without detailed reasoning.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s decision allowing the review petition, reinstating the original judgment from the writ petition. The matter was remanded to the High Court to reconsider other related petitions and contempt matters.
Relevant Acts, Sections, Provisions, and Rules
Order 47 Rule 1, Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
Case of the Appellant
The appellant argued that the High Court had erred in allowing the review petition, contending that the review court acted beyond its jurisdiction by essentially re-arguing the case. They asserted that the High Court wrongly exercised its review powers as if it were sitting in appeal, which is not permissible under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
Appellant Relied On
Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753; Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. vs. Assam SEB, (2020) 2 SCC 677.
Case of the Respondent
The respondent contended that the original judgment was based on erroneous facts and that the High Court was justified in exercising its review jurisdiction to correct the errors. They argued that the survey report discarded by the High Court in the original writ petition was crucial and its exclusion led to a miscarriage of justice.
Respondent Relied On
The respondent’s arguments were based on the validity and necessity of considering the survey report and correcting the alleged fraudulent activities of the original petitioner.
Question & Answer
Question: What was the Supreme Court’s main criticism of the High Court’s review order? Answer: The Supreme Court criticized the High Court for exceeding its jurisdiction by treating the review petition as an appeal, which is not allowed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
Question: What legal provisions govern the review jurisdiction in this case? Answer: The review jurisdiction is governed by Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
Question: On what grounds did the Supreme Court restore the original judgment? Answer: The Supreme Court restored the original judgment because the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction and improperly used its review powers to correct an alleged error that was not apparent on the face of the record.
Question: What happens to the contempt and writ petitions dismissed by the High Court? Answer: The contempt and writ petitions dismissed by the High Court have been remanded to the High Court for reconsideration in accordance with law.
Question: Can a review petition be used as an appeal according to the Supreme Court? Answer: No, the Supreme Court clarified that a review petition cannot be used as an appeal. Review powers are limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record.
Details of Case
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice M. R. Shah, Justice C. T. Ravikumar
Date of Order: February 24, 2023
Case Name: S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan & Ors.
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 1167-1170 of 2023
