Review Application is Not Maintainable in Absence of Error Apparent on the Face of the Record

The applicant filed a Review Application seeking to review an earlier order passed by the Madras High Court in W.P. No. 23030 of 2022, dated August 30, 2022.

The primary grievance of the applicant was that the court, in its original order, had not specifically granted liberty to the writ petitioner to approach a Civil Court of Law regarding the infringement of certain civil rights.

1. Whether the failure to explicitly grant liberty to approach a Civil Court constitutes an "error apparent on the face of the record" justifying a review of the court's order.

The Court applied the fundamental principle governing the power of review, which dictates that a review is permissible only if there is an "error apparent on the face of the record".

Furthermore, it applied the principle of civil remedy, which holds that if a party's civil rights are infringed, the right to approach a Civil Court remains inherently open unless specifically barred by law, regardless of whether a High Court explicitly grants such liberty.

The Court analyzed the applicant’s contention and observed that the absence of a specific direction granting liberty to approach a Civil Court does not qualify as a legal error or an "error apparent on the face of the record".

The Bench reasoned that it is a settled position that if any civil right is infringed, it is always left open for the aggrieved party to seek redressal before a Civil Court of Law without needing express permission from the High Court in a writ proceeding.

Consequently, because the original order lacked any patent legal or factual mistake, the threshold for exercising review jurisdiction was not met.

The Review Application was dismissed, and the connected Miscellaneous Petition was closed.

The court clarified that the applicant remains at liberty to approach a Civil Court if their civil rights are infringed.

No costs were awarded.