Mere non-consideration of an Order XLI Rule 27 application does not warrant review absent apparent error.

The petitioner had preferred Second Appeal No. 1157 of 2007 before the Madhya Pradesh High Court and had also filed an application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), seeking to produce a certified copy of a Khasra document as additional evidence.

The second appeal had been disposed of without costs by an order dated 22 November 2016.

The petitioner sought review, contending that the Coordinate Bench had failed to consider the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC.

The respondents opposed the review petition, relying on the limited scope of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

Whether the alleged non-consideration of the petitioner’s application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review?

Whether the petitioner had established any permissible ground for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC?

The Court applied Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, under which review is permissible only on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason.

It relied on Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (Smt.), (2006) 4 SCC 78, Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury (Smt.), (1995) 1 SCC 170, Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, (1979) 4 SCC 389, and Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, for the rule that review is not an appeal in disguise and that an error apparent must be self-evident, patent, and discoverable without a long-drawn process of reasoning.

The Court also referred to Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of A.P., (1964) 5 SCR 174, and held that a mere erroneous decision on merits is not reviewable.

It further relied on Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 501, State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sen Gupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, and S. Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission, (2009) 10 SCC 464, regarding the exceptional and restricted nature of review jurisdiction.

The Court accepted that the application under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC and the certified Khasra document had not been specifically considered by the Coordinate Bench.

However, it held that the petitioner failed to explain the relevance of the Khasra document to the second appeal or demonstrate how its consideration could affect the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

Mere filing of an application for additional evidence did not establish an error apparent on the face of the record.

Determining the relevance and evidentiary value of the document would require substantive reasoning and could not be undertaken in review proceedings.

The petitioner’s contention therefore amounted, in substance, to an attempt to obtain reconsideration of the earlier decision, which is impermissible because review jurisdiction cannot be used as appellate jurisdiction.

The alleged non-consideration of the Order XLI Rule 27 application did not warrant review, particularly as the petitioner failed to demonstrate the relevance of the Khasra document to the second appeal.

Accordingly, the review petition was dismissed and no interference was made with the earlier order.