Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reappreciate facts absent an error apparent.

Arkay Energy (Rameswaram) Private Limited 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 recall of the Madras High Court’s order dated 18 March 2024 in O.S.A. (CAD) No.157 of 2023

The applicant alleged, inter alia, wrong application of mind to the facts, mischaracterisation of issues, ignorance of binding precedent, ignorance of vital evidence, and non-consideration of material issues

The respondent was Tidel Park Limited.

Whether the applicant had established an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 18 March 2024 under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC?

Whether the review application could be used to re-appreciate facts, documents, and issues already considered and decided by the Court?

The Court applied the limited scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 CPC, under which a judgment may be reviewed only on recognised grounds, including the discovery of new and important matter or evidence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason.

The Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be invoked for re-appreciation of facts, reconsideration of documents, or re-argument of issues already adjudicated.

The Court also held that non-consideration of certain documents or a party’s disagreement with the appreciation of facts does not, by itself, constitute an error apparent warranting review.

The Court examined the grounds raised by the applicant and found that they principally challenged the Court’s appreciation of facts and determination of issues in the original appellate order.

The allegation that the Court had ignored binding precedent was characterised as unwarranted, particularly because the applicant was attempting to reopen the merits rather than identify a patent error apparent on the face of the record.

Since the original order had elaborately considered the facts and answered the issues between the parties, the Court held that the scope of review could not be expanded to permit re-appreciation of those matters.

The applicant therefore failed to satisfy the legal threshold for exercise of review jurisdiction.

It held that no error apparent on the face of the record had been established and that the grounds raised amounted to an impermissible attempt to re-adjudicate the merits.

Accordingly, Review Application No.193 of 2026 was dismissed, without costs, and the connected C.M.P. No.22442 of 2026 was closed.