Non-grant of expressly sought relief does not constitute an error apparent warranting review.

The petitioner sought review and recall of the order dated 17.09.2025 passed in W.P.(C) No. 21551 of 2025.

In the writ petition, she had challenged the Family Court’s order dated 18.06.2025 rejecting her application under Section 152 CPC for correction of alleged defects in the decree dated 17.04.2025, and had sought rectification of the decree, correction of her and her father’s surnames from “Panigrahi” to “Panigrahy,” and an inquiry into alleged misconduct by the Family Court Judge, court staff and lawyers.

The writ petition was disposed of after the High Court held that the decree had been properly drawn and clarified that any execution proceeding based on the decree in C.P. No. 472 of 2022 should proceed in accordance with law without objection based on the alleged defects.

The petitioner contended that several prayers had remained undecided, constituting an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

1. Whether the order dated 17.09.2025 suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record because the petitioner’s prayers concerning correction of the decree and quashing of the Family Court’s order under Section 152 CPC were allegedly left undecided.

2. Whether the alleged defects in the decree—such as lack of pagination, absence of seals on every page, discrepancies in dates and omission of marriage particulars—rendered the decree defective or incapable of execution.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled, in the review proceedings, to correction of her and her father’s surnames in the court records, judgment and decree.

4. Whether the petitioner’s prayer for an inquiry against the Presiding Officer, court staff, Panel Lawyer and advocates required consideration in review.

The Court applied Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, under which review lies only on limited grounds including an error apparent on the face of the record; Section 152 CPC, which permits correction of clerical or arithmetical mistakes and accidental slips or omissions; and Order XX Rules 6, 6-A and 7 CPC, which prescribe the contents of a decree, require its preparation ordinarily within fifteen days of pronouncement of judgment, and provide that it bears the date of the judgment and must be signed by the Judge after satisfaction that it conforms to the judgment.

The Court also relied on Rules 137–140 of the G.R.C.O. (Civil), concerning exhibition, inspection, objection to and signing of decrees.

It further applied the principle that a relief not expressly granted is ordinarily deemed to have been refused, and that review cannot be used to re-argue matters already considered or to seek a different conclusion.

The Court found that the writ order had expressly considered the alleged defects in the decree, recorded the Family Court’s finding that the decree was properly drawn, and provided an operative clarification that execution could proceed without objection based on those alleged defects.

Accordingly, the petitioner’s disagreement with the refusal to grant the specific reliefs did not establish an error apparent warranting review.

Applying Order XX CPC and the G.R.C.O. (Civil), the Court held that the decree complied with the legally required contents and timing: although it was dated 04.04.2025, corresponding to the judgment date, it was drawn on 15.04.2025 and signed by the Family Court Judge on 17.04.2025.

The absence of pagination and the absence of the Family Court seal on one page were not legally fatal and did not prevent execution.

The surname-correction request was not part of the Section 152 application before the Family Court and, in any event, the petitioner herself had used “Panigrahi” in the original proceedings; therefore, that issue could be pursued before the court below through an appropriate application rather than by review.

The inquiry allegations were neither pressed during the writ hearing nor supported by specific and convincing grounds, and therefore did not justify review.

No costs were imposed, although the Court observed that the petition was frivolous, taking into account that the petitioner was a deserted woman.

The dismissal was expressly made without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to file an appropriate application before the Family Court for correction of her and her father’s surnames in the court records, judgment and decree.