A Review Application Cannot Be Entertained as an Appeal in Disguise to Re-Appreciate Evidence or Fill Lacunae.

The Applicant, a post-graduate law student, was barred by Maharashtra National Law University (MNLU), Sambhajinagar, from appearing in her second-semester examinations due to a failure to meet the mandatory 75% attendance requirement under the University Regulations 2020.

The Applicant previously challenged this via Writ Petition (WP/4881/2026), which was dismissed on 30.04.2026.

The Applicant subsequently filed this review application under Order XLVII of the CPC, seeking to reopen the matter, conduct a special examination, and produce new medical evidence and attendance records.

1. Whether there exists an "error apparent on the face of the record" regarding attendance computation and relaxation rules to warrant a review of the judgment.

2. Whether the applicant can introduce new evidence (medical papers and attendance sheets) in a review petition that was within her knowledge during the original writ proceedings.

3. Whether the doctrine of proportionality or subsequent interim orders of superior courts in unrelated cases justify a review of the finalized judgment.

The Court primarily applied Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, which restricts the grounds for review to the discovery of new/important evidence (not available despite due diligence), a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason.

It relied on the principles from Lily Thomas v. Union of India and Government of NCT of Delhi v. K. L. Rathi Steels Limited, which establish that a review is not an "appeal in disguise" and that subsequent shifts in law or developments do not constitute grounds for review.

It further applied the Maharashtra National Law University Regulations 2020 and the PG Academic Committee Resolution, which mandate 75% attendance but permit a relaxation down to 67% on medical grounds.

The Court found no "error apparent" as the Applicant’s attendance (max 51.12%) fell significantly below both the mandatory 75% and the relaxation threshold of 67%.

The Court rejected the Applicant’s attempt to introduce "new" Ayurvedic medical documents, noting they were in her custody during the Writ Petition and their omission indicated a lack of due diligence.

Regarding procedural impropriety in the Grievance Redressal Committee, the Court noted the Applicant admitted to not attending the meeting, yet leveled reckless allegations against the committee, which it termed an "abuse of process".

The Court emphasized that a review cannot be used to re-argue the merits of the case or to fill lacunae in the original pleadings.

The Court held that the prayers for a special examination were beyond the scope of review powers.

The Court expressed serious displeasure at the Applicant’s "reckless and irresponsible" allegations against university faculty and batch-mates and directed the Registry to mask the name of the Applicant's batch-mate to protect his privacy.