Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Exercised to Re-Evaluate Merits or Substitute Findings in the Absence of Error Apparent.

The Petitioner, Jagdish Prasad Shukla, sought a review of the High Court’s order dated 04.11.2025 passed in Writ Petition No. 6034/2025

In the original writ proceedings, Respondent No. 1 (Ruchita Agnihotri) challenged a Commissioner’s order that had dismissed her appeal regarding property mutation

The Commissioner had held that her status as the legally wedded wife of the Petitioner’s son was disputed, as it was based solely on an Arya Samaj Mandir certificate

The High Court subsequently allowed the writ petition, directing the mutation of Respondent No. 1’s name in the land records while allowing parties to seek a declaration of rights in Civil Court

The Petitioner filed the present review, arguing that mutation should only follow a Civil Court declaration, not precede it

1. Whether there exists an error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 04.11.2025 that warrants the exercise of review jurisdiction

2. Whether the court can substitute its own findings or rehear the merits of a case under the guise of a review petition

The court primarily applied the principles of review jurisdiction as governed by the Code of Civil Procedure and interpreted by the Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320

This precedent establishes that a review is not an "appeal in disguise," and is only maintainable if there is a patent error or a miscarriage of justice, rather than a mere possibility of two views

Additionally, the court noted the application of the Hindu Succession Act regarding the original determination of mutation rights

The Court observed that the original order dated 04.11.2025 was a reasoned decision based on the merits of the case and the principles of the Hindu Succession Act

It found that the Petitioner’s argument—that mutation should only occur after a civil declaration—did not constitute an "error apparent on the face of the record," but was rather a challenge to the merits of the decision

Applying the Kamlesh Verma parameters, the Court reasoned that review proceedings cannot be equated with an original hearing or an appeal

Since the Petitioner failed to point out any manifest error that undermined the soundness of the order, the Court determined it could not substitute its findings or reopen concluded adjudications

The High Court answered both issues in the negative, affirming that its limited jurisdiction does not allow for a rehearing of matters already decided on merits

Consequently, the Review Petition was dismissed