A review petition cannot reopen concluded findings absent an error apparent on the record.

The petitioner sought review of the Gauhati High Court’s judgment dated 10 February 2025 in MFA No. 27 of 2016, which had set aside the Railway Claims Tribunal’s award and remanded the matter for reconsideration of the freight-concession claim.

The underlying claim concerned a 2008 salt consignment from Halvad to Dikom. The petitioner had also sought a refund of terminal charges, contending that the stations were not among the 50 stations identified in the Railway Board’s letter dated 5 June 2007.

The petitioner argued that the Court had overlooked the 5 June 2007 letter and later decisions addressing the 50 stations; the Railway opposed review as an impermissible appeal in disguise.

Whether the judgment dated 10 February 2025 contained an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient ground for review, concerning terminal charges.

Whether the Railway Board’s letter dated 5 June 2007 and the decisions concerning the 50 specified stations supplied a basis to review the judgment and remit the terminal-charge issue to the Tribunal.

Section 114 and Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 permit review on specified grounds, including discovery of new and important matter despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason.

Under Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, review is not an appeal in disguise: it does not permit reappreciation of evidence or reconsideration merely because another view is possible; the error must be apparent and not require a process of reasoning to discover it.

The Court also invoked the coordinate-bench rule discussed in National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Pranay Sethi, (2017) 16 SCC 680: a bench of equal strength is bound by an earlier coordinate-bench decision and cannot take a contrary view without referring the matter to a larger bench.

The Court held that the judgment under review had addressed terminal charges, including the effect of Rates Circular No. 92/2007 and the 2015 decision in MFA No. 100 of 2011.

It rejected the argument that the 5 June 2007 letter remained operative, reasoning that the later circular superseded the relevant earlier instructions.

It further found that the petitioner had not established that the 2024 decisions concerning the 50 specified stations involved the same circulars and issues; without the necessary pleadings and supporting material, those decisions did not demonstrate an error in the judgment under review.

The Court also considered itself bound by the earlier coordinate-bench ruling in MFA No. 100 of 2011 and concluded that the petitioner had not shown any recognised ground for review.

It imposed costs of ₹5,000, payable to the Gauhati High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks.