Non-consideration of a prior binding Supreme Court precedent constitutes an error apparent on the record warranting review. The High Court allowed a review petition after realizing its previous judgment—which had declared a trial court decree a nullity for jurisdictional errors—conflicted with a Supreme Court ruling delivered just days earlier. The Court held that even if a binding precedent is not brought to its attention by counsel, its omission provides sufficient grounds for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the Court recalled its previous order and transferred the appeal to the Commercial Division for a hearing on the merits. Would you like a summary of the facts and arguments presented by the parties in this matter?

The respondent filed a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profit regarding property used for commercial purposes

A decree was passed on January 9, 2024, by a Trial Judge sitting in a non-commercial division

In a subsequent appeal (APD/9/2025), the High Court set aside the decree as a nullity, holding that the suit involved a "commercial dispute" under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the Trial Judge lacked the specific jurisdiction/roster to hear it

The review applicant moved the court for a review of this judgment on the grounds that a binding Supreme Court precedent, rendered two days prior to the High Court’s judgment, was not considered

1. Whether the failure to consider a binding precedent of a superior court, rendered prior to the judgment under review but not brought to the court's notice, constitutes a valid ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

2. Whether a judgment can be set aside as a nullity solely on the grounds of a lack of commercial roster/jurisdiction without an examination of the merits of the case.

The court applied Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which allows for review based on an error apparent on the face of the record or "sufficient reason," including misconceptions of law

The Court relied on Tinkari Sen v. Dulal Chandra Das regarding the neglect of well-settled law

The Court relied on BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club which expanded "sufficient reason" to include mistakes by counsel or the court

Crucially, it applied the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Shri Balaji Industrial Engineering Ltd. v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. (Civil Appeal of 2026), which held that a judgment should not be set aside solely for lack of commercial jurisdiction without merit-based consideration

It distinguished NCT of Delhi v. K. L. Rathi Steels Limited, noting that review is maintainable if the superior court's decision preceded the judgment under review

The Court found that although it had previously declared the trial decree a nullity due to the violation of the Commercial Courts Act's jurisdictional mandates, the Supreme Court’s decision in Shri Balaji Industrial Engineering Ltd. specifically reversed this line of reasoning

Since the Supreme Court delivered its ruling on April 22, 2026—two days before the High Court's April 24, 2026 judgment—the ruling was a binding precedent at the time of the High Court's decision

Under the doctrine of actus curiae neminem gravabit and the broad interpretation of "sufficient reason" in Order 47 Rule 1, the Court reasoned that the oversight caused by the counsel’s lack of awareness of the new precedent constituted an error apparent on the record

The Court rejected the respondent's argument that the new precedent conflicted with older rulings, holding that it was bound by the most recent relevant Supreme Court direction

Holding that the suit indeed involved a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c)(vii) of the Act of 2015, the Court directed that the appeal (APD/9/2025) be transferred from the Non-Commercial Division to the Commercial Division for a hearing on its merits

The Registry was ordered to renumber the appeal and treat the existing paper books as valid for the Commercial Division