Order 47, Rule 1 of The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

The principles for interference in exercise of review jurisdiction are well settled. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh, AIR 1964 SC 1372 the Court while dealing with the scope of review had opined:

“A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.”

In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715 the Court after referring to Thungabhadra held thus:

“A Judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1.”

The SC has recently ruled in Sasi v. Aravindakshan Nair [Civil Appeal No. 4339 of 2017] that, even though a reasonable period can be spent for in disposing a review application, it cannot be four years. An endeavor has to be made by the High Courts to dispose of the review with expediency. The prescription of limitation for filing an application for review has its own sanctity.

A copy of the order has been sent to the Registrar General of each of the High Courts so that it can be placed before the Learned Chief Justice/Acting Chief Justice to do the needful in the matter.