Review jurisdiction cannot be used to re-examine merits absent an error apparent on the record.

The respondents had sought fixation of pay in the scale of Rs. 3,050–4,590, relying on an order dated 17 March 2003. The High Court allowed their writ petition by order dated 13 November 2025.

Nagar Nigam Gwalior sought review, relying on an order dated 7 June 2003—which it said it had subsequently discovered—placing appointment and promotion orders issued between 7 February 2002 and 7 June 2003 in abeyance and constituting a committee to examine the matter. The review petitioner argued that this document affected the respondents’ claim; the respondents opposed review on the ground that it sought a rehearing on the merits. The Court condoned the delay in filing the review petition.

1. Whether the subsequently discovered order dated 7 June 2003 provided a ground to review the order dated 13 November 2025.

2. Whether the review petitioner established an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

Section 114 CPC and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC permit review on discovery of new and important matter or evidence that, despite due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not previously be produced; an error apparent on the face of the record; or another sufficient reason.

Under Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, and State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, review is not an appeal or a rehearing, and an apparent error must be prima facie visible without detailed examination. Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India, 1980 Supp SCC 562, and Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, further establish that review is confined to patent or manifest error; an error requiring reasoning to detect does not ordinarily qualify.

The Court treated the petitioner’s reliance on the 7 June 2003 order as requiring reconsideration of the earlier decision and the merits of the respondents’ claim. That would amount to re-examination rather than correction of a patent error.

The petitioner therefore had not shown an error apparent on the face of the record or otherwise established a basis for interference within the limited review jurisdiction.

The delay in filing had been condoned, but no review relief was granted.