Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reappreciate evidence absent an error apparent on the record.

M/s Adigear International, the appellant/defendant, sought review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC of the Delhi High Court’s judgment dated 16 June 2026, by which its appeal against the respondent’s decree had been dismissed.

The applicant contended that the Court had overlooked Debit Notes and Challans allegedly evidencing the return of defective goods, as well as a Confirmation Statement dated 10 July 2014, Ex. DW-1/P1.

It further argued that the respondent’s claim, based on invoices issued between September 2012 and December 2014, was partly barred by limitation because each invoice constituted a separate cause of action; the two dishonoured cheques were allegedly security cheques and not acknowledgments under Section 18 of the Limitation Act.

The applicant also challenged the grant of pre-suit interest in the absence of an agreed contractual rate.

The respondent opposed the review. The Court examined whether these contentions disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record or merely sought re-appreciation of evidence.

Whether the alleged oversight or de-exhibition of the Debit Notes and Challans, and the Court’s assessment of the evidence concerning return of defective goods, constituted an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review?

Whether the suit was partly barred by limitation because limitation had to be computed separately from each invoice under Article 14 of the Limitation Act?

Whether the two dishonoured cheques constituted acknowledgments under Section 18 of the Limitation Act, or were merely security cheques incapable of extending limitation?

Whether the Confirmation Statement, Ex. DW-1/P1, had been improperly disregarded despite having been produced and exhibited during cross-examination?

Whether the award of pre-suit interest in the absence of an agreed contractual rate disclosed a ground for review?

The Court applied Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 151 CPC, under which review is confined to an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter despite due diligence, or another sufficient reason; review cannot be used for re-appreciation of evidence or a rehearing on merits.

Article 14 of the Limitation Act, concerning suits for the price of goods sold and delivered, and Section 18 of that Act, concerning acknowledgment of liability, governed the limitation contentions.

The applicant relied on Micrographics India v. GNCTD, Harjit Singh v. Bharat Hotels Ltd., Continental Advertising Pvt. Ltd. v. Karan & Co., Shell India Markets Pvt. Ltd. v. Raja Ram Paras Prabhu, and Sugandhi (Dead) through LRs v. P. Rajkumar in support of its submissions.

The Court held, however, that the impugned judgment had already considered the relevant evidence and legal contentions, and that disagreement with its appreciation of evidence did not satisfy the review standard.

The Court held that although the Debit Notes and Challans had been filed with the list of documents, they had been specifically de-exhibited during DW-1’s evidence and marked as Mark DW-1/B1 to B6 without objection from the defendant.

In any event, their mere presence on the record did not prove the return of goods, their defective quality, or their acknowledgment by the respondent.

DW-1’s evidence did not establish any written communication regarding return of goods; the alleged acknowledgment by the respondent’s employee, Kapil, was denied; and the defendant neither proved its ledger or statement of account nor properly confronted the plaintiff with those documents.

Consequently, the challenge sought re-appreciation of evidence, which was impermissible in review.

On limitation, the Court found that the effect of the two cheques and the plea that they were security cheques had already been addressed in the impugned judgment, leaving no apparent error.

The Confirmation Statement was also considered and rejected because it was not put to the plaintiff in cross-examination and the defendant failed to prove Kapil’s authority or acknowledgment of the document.

The objection to pre-suit interest was treated as a challenge to the merits rather than a reviewable error.

The Review Petition was dismissed, and the pending application was disposed of accordingly.