Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Exercised to Re-Appreciate Evidence or Re-Hear Merits Under the Guise of Appeal

The Petitioner, a Lieutenant Colonel, filed a Review Petition seeking reconsideration of a judgment dated 16.05.2026, which had dismissed his writ petition challenging the validity of his Confidential Reports (CRs) for 2010 and 2011.

The original judgment upheld the Armed Forces Tribunal’s (AFT) decision, finding that the Petitioner had personally authenticated the 2010 CRs, had not established forgery, and had raised objections only after being denied promotion.

The Petitioner moved for review on grounds that the Court erred in its interpretation of Army Order 45/2001/MS, the validity of "one-man reports," and the factual accuracy of his presence during the signing of records.

1. Whether there exists an "error apparent on the face of the record" or other sufficient grounds under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC to warrant a review of the judgment.

2. Whether the Court’s previous findings on the technical validity of the CRs and the interpretation of army orders constitute a reappreciation of evidence beyond the scope of review jurisdiction.

The Court primarily applied Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relating to the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

It relied on Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, which establishes that review is not an "appeal in disguise" and must be confined to errors striking one on mere looking at the record without long-drawn reasoning.

Further, it applied principles from Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi and Lily Thomas v. Union of India, which hold that a mere possibility of two views is not a ground for review.

The Court also maintained the principle that comparative merit and CR assessments are within the exclusive domain of military experts under Article 226.

The Court reasoned that the Petitioner’s grounds for review—specifically those concerning the violation of Para 16(c) of Army Order 45/2001/MS, the "Paramount Card" entries, and his physical absence during the signing of documents—were essentially attempts to relitigate the merits of the case.

The Bench noted that it had already addressed the authentication of records in paragraphs 35–41 of the original judgment and the "one-man report" issue in paragraph 44.

It held that an error requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning cannot be termed "apparent on the face of the record".

Since the Petitioner was inviting the Court to undertake a fresh appreciation of documents and statutory interpretation, the Court determined such pleas fall under appellate, not review, jurisdiction.

The Court answered the issues by affirming that dissatisfaction with the Court’s reasoning or the desire for a more elaborate discussion on specific army orders does not satisfy the requirements of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.