Father’s Claim He Sought Employer Education Benefits, Not a Loan, Doesn’t Reopen Bona Fide Certificate Case: Madras HC

The petitioner sought review of the order dismissing his writ appeal, which had upheld dismissal of his writ petition challenging an order of the Chief Educational Officer.

The writ petition concerned a request for a bona fide certificate relating to his children’s education.

The petitioner contended in review that he had not sought a certificate to obtain an educational loan, but to claim education-related benefits from his employer.

The writ appeal had been dismissed after the Court considered the multiple proceedings between the petitioner and his wife, including pending custody proceedings, and concluded that there was no valid ground to interfere with the Single Judge’s order.

Section 114 and Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure provide for review on limited grounds; review is not an appeal in disguise and does not permit rehearing of the matter.

The Court relied on Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, for the principle that a review court does not sit in appeal over its own order and that rehearing is impermissible.

The judgment refers to “Order XVII, Rule 1” when describing the review parameters, although the application itself was brought under Order XLVII, Rule 1 and 2 read with Section 114 CPC.

The Court treated the petitioner’s clarification about seeking employer benefits rather than an educational loan as insufficient to establish a review ground.

It noted that the Single Judge and the writ appeal court had considered the broader context, including the parties’ multiple litigations, the child’s custody with the mother, and the pending custody application; the petitioner had been given liberty to raise the relevant issues in the pending proceedings.

In light of the restricted scope of review and the prohibition on rehearing, the asserted misdescription did not warrant review of the appellate order.

The Court dismissed the review application.