Absence of counsel and failure to exhaust alternative remedies do not constitute errors apparent for review.

The review petitioners (respondents in the writ petition) sought recall/review/modification of the order dated 28.11.2025 passed in W.P. No. 1731/2016 (Ranjit Singh Yadav v. M.P. Rajya Beej Avam Farm and Another), by which the respondent's writ petition had been allowed

The review petition was accompanied by I.A. No. 4891/2026 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay

The review petitioners contended that their counsel could not appear on 28.11.2025 due to personal reasons, and that the writ petitioner had directly approached the High Court without filing an appeal against the impugned order dated 26.02.2016 (Annexure P-1), a fact allegedly not considered by the Court

The respondent countered that the case was listed in the cause list on 28.11.2025, no one appeared for the review petitioners, and no adjournment application was filed; that the writ petition pertained to 2016; and that the impugned order (also referred to as dated 10.02.2016) was founded on an audit report prepared behind the petitioner's back, without following the mandatory procedure under Rules 14 and 16 of the M.P. Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1966

1. Whether the delay in filing the review petition merited condonation under Section 5 of the Limitation Act

2. Whether the order dated 28.11.2025 passed in W.P. No. 1731/2016 disclosed any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient reason, warranting interference within the limited scope of review jurisdiction

The Court applied Section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay in filing the review petition

Review is maintainable only upon discovery of new matter or evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or "any other sufficient reason" — a phrase interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki, (1921-22) 49 IA 144 and approved in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius, AIR 1954 SC 526, as a reason analogous to the preceding grounds

Review is not an appeal in disguise, cannot rest on re-agitation of old arguments, the mere possibility of two views is no ground for review, and the error must be patent rather than one requiring a searched-out examination

An error apparent on the face of the record must be prima facie visible without detailed examination, and that an erroneous view of law is not a ground for review (State of West Bengal & Ors. v. Kamal Sengupta & Anr., (2008) 8 SCC 612)

The Court found on facts that although the case was listed on 28.11.2025, no one appeared for the review petitioners and no adjournment application was moved; given that the writ petition had been pending since 2016, the Court had proceeded to decide it

the impugned order was founded on an audit report prepared without affording the writ petitioner an opportunity of hearing, and the mandatory procedure under Rules 14 and 16 of the 1966 Rules had not been followed by the review petitioners

Testing the review petitioners' contentions against the Kamlesh Verma framework and the Kamal Sengupta standard, the Court held that neither the absence of counsel on the date of hearing nor the argument regarding non-filing of an appeal constituted a patent error or a ground analogous to those enumerated; such contentions amounted to an impermissible re-hearing sought in the guise of review

No mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, being prima facie visible without detailed examination, was found

The Court held that no case for interference was made out within the limited scope of review jurisdiction, as no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record was palpably found. The review petition was accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits