Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to re-adjudicate facts absent an error apparent on the record.

The applicant filed a Review Application under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review and setting aside of the order dated 6 January 2025 passed by the Division Bench in O.S.A. No. 256 of 2024.

The applicant principally contended that the affidavit filed by him had not been considered when the earlier order was passed.

The respondents opposed the review. The Court considered whether the alleged non-consideration justified exercise of review jurisdiction.

Whether the alleged non-consideration of the applicant’s affidavit constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC.

Whether the Review Application was an impermissible attempt to re-adjudicate factual issues already considered by the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench.

The Court applied Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 114 CPC, under which review may be granted only on recognised grounds, including an error apparent on the face of the record.

Review proceedings cannot be used to re-adjudicate factual matters already considered by the original court and the appellate court.

The applicant’s contention was limited to the alleged failure to consider his affidavit.

The Court held that this allegation, without demonstrating an error apparent on the face of the record, did not satisfy the legal threshold for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

On examining the grounds raised, the Court found that the applicant was attempting to reopen and re-argue factual matters that had already been considered before the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench. Such re-adjudication fell outside the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

Accordingly, Review Application No. 190 of 2026 was dismissed, with no order as to costs.