Review cannot reopen a decided matter on belated claims that disclose no error apparent on the record.

The petitioner sought review of the order dated 24 July 2026 in C.R.P. No. 707 of 2026, which had directed him to tender demand drafts totalling Rs.7,50,000 and required the respondents to remove machinery from the tenanted premises upon compliance with the stated terms.

In review, the petitioner contended that the respondents’ failure to pay statutory dues relating to fly ash—arising from 2015 onwards and settled by the respondents in September 2017—created a charge affecting the property and prevented him from leasing it; he said these facts had not been brought to the Court’s attention in the revision.

The respondents opposed review, stating that the petitioner had not complied with the earlier order and was raising new claims to avoid payment.

1. Whether the alleged omission of material facts concerning the respondents’ post-compromise default disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 24 July 2026

2. Whether, following dismissal of the review, the respondents could be permitted to remove the machinery and pursue the amount remaining unpaid

The review was brought under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

The Court applied the principle that review is not warranted merely to raise contentions that were not advanced when the original matter was heard; the asserted omission must disclose an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court also observed that the petitioner could have sought appropriate relief concerning the compromise or pursued an independent counterclaim for damages arising from the alleged breach of reciprocal obligations.

Although the Court accepted that the alleged statutory-dues default arose after the 2014 compromise, the petitioner knew of the default by 2016 and the dues were settled in 2017.

He could have sought relief concerning the compromise or claimed damages at that time, but did not do so; nor were these contentions argued in the revision.

The Court therefore treated the review as an attempt to introduce belated arguments, not as a basis to find an error apparent on the record.

As the earlier payment direction remained uncomplied with, the Court separately addressed the respondents’ request to remove the machinery and pursue the unpaid balance.

It permitted the respondents to remove the Schedule “B” machinery, at their cost, within one week from receipt of the order.

If the petitioner did not pay the remaining Rs.5,87,500, the respondents were at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law.