Failure to consider documents not placed on record is not an error apparent for review.

The respondent/plaintiff instituted a civil suit for declaration of title, partition, and possession of agricultural property in Village Chillur, claiming a 1/5th share as the heir of Mangilal

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 10/01/2019, citing a lack of documentary evidence regarding heirship or partition

The First Appellate Court reversed this on 17/04/2025, granting the plaintiff a 1/7th share

The High Court subsequently dismissed the petitioner’s Second Appeal (S.A. No. 1213/2025) on 16/10/2025

The petitioner filed the present review petition under Article 226, contending that the Court failed to consider an earlier suit withdrawn via mediation compromise and that the First Appellate Court’s findings on constructive possession were illegal and barred by Res Judicata

1. Whether the non-consideration of an alleged mediation compromise constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record when the relevant documents were not produced during appellate proceedings

2. Whether the findings of the First Appellate Court regarding constructive possession can be challenged within the limited scope of review jurisdiction

3. Whether the petitioner’s grounds for review amount to an "appeal in disguise" prohibited under Article 226

The Court applied the principles of review jurisdiction as articulated in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320, which restricts review to cases involving the discovery of new evidence (subject to due diligence), errors apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reasons analogous to Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC

It followed Chhajju Ram v. Neki and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to interpret "sufficient reason"

The Court underscored that review is not a mechanism for re-appreciating evidence or correcting an erroneous decision through a rehearing

The Court found that the petitioner’s primary argument—the existence of a prior compromise—could not establish a manifest error because the compromise and mediation reports were never filed before the High Court or the First Appellate Court

The Court reasoned that judicial failure to find facts based on absent documents does not constitute an error apparent on the record

Regarding the challenge to the First Appellate Court’s findings on possession and the application of Neelabati v. N. Natarajan, the Court held that such matters require a re-appreciation of evidence

Under the Kamlesh Verma mandate, the appreciation of evidence is the exclusive domain of the appellate court and is strictly prohibited in review proceedings

The Court concluded the petitioner failed to show any patent error, seeking instead to reopen concluded adjudications

The Court held that a review is not maintainable when the relief sought involves "fishing out" errors or re-arguing the merits of the case

No order as to costs was passed