A review petition cannot re-agitate an appeal absent an apparent error.

Manimekalai sought review of the High Court’s judgment dated 29 August 2025 in S.A. (MD) No. 36 of 2019, which allowed Ganesan’s second appeal and rejected the plaint in O.S. No. 302 of 2013.

The Court had found that the suit involved re-litigation of issues that had reached finality through earlier proceedings and that the plaintiff claimed through persons whose rights had been rejected in prior litigation.

The review application was considered under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 CPC.

Whether the grounds raised by Manimekalai disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record or another ground permitting review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

Whether the review application could be used to re-agitate the merits of the second appeal.

Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC govern the Court’s review jurisdiction, which is distinct from appellate power and confined to the grounds specified by law.

Relying on Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, and the authorities cited there, the Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise; it may be exercised to correct a patent error apparent on the face of the record, consider qualifying new evidence despite due diligence, or address another sufficient reason analogous to those grounds. A review cannot be used to rehear the matter or substitute one view for another.

The Court considered the review grounds against the limited statutory scope of review.

It found that the grounds did not fall within any recognised review ground and instead sought to re-agitate the appeal. Because that would require reconsideration of the merits rather than correction of a manifest error, the application could not be allowed.

The connected miscellaneous petition was closed, with no order as to costs.