Review jurisdiction cannot be used to re-examine merits or substitute views absent a manifest error.

The petitioner sought a review of the order dated 21.02.2023, which had dismissed his challenge to a Trial Court order dated 26.11.2019

The original dispute involved Eviction Suit No. 05 of 2017 filed by Opposite Party (O.P.) No. 1 against O.P. No. 2.

In his written statement, O.P. No. 2 claimed that the petitioner (his brother) also conducted business in the suit premises

the Trial Court allowed an amendment to implead the petitioner as a defendant to ensure effective adjudication and prevent multiplicity of proceedings

The petitioner’s brother had previously challenged this impleadment in C.W.J.C. No. 324 of 2020, which was dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench on 11.07.2022

The petitioner argued that he held an independent tenancy and that his impleadment altered the nature of the suit

1. Whether the order dated 21.02.2023 contains an error apparent on the face of the record warranting the exercise of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC

2. Whether the impleadment of the petitioner as a party-defendant was necessary for the proper and effective adjudication of the eviction suit

Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which define the limited scope of review jurisdiction

principles articulated in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927), which established that a review is not an "appeal in disguise" and cannot be used to rehear an erroneous decision or substitute a view

The rule dictates that review is permissible only upon the discovery of new evidence, a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other analogous sufficient reasons

the scope of review is extremely narrow and does not permit the re-appreciation of evidence or merits

It observed that the Trial Court impleaded the petitioner based on the original defendant's statement regarding the petitioner's occupation of the premises, a move intended to facilitate a complete adjudication of the tenancy dispute

The High Court noted that the petitioner’s arguments—specifically his claim of independent tenancy and lack of cause of action—pertain to the merits of the eviction suit itself rather than revealing a patent error in the court's previous order

Furthermore, since a Co-ordinate Bench had already upheld the impleadment order in a separate challenge by the petitioner's brother, there was no justification to interfere

The court concluded that the petitioner was merely attempting to re-argue the case, which is impermissible in review proceedings

It affirmed that the impleadment was necessary to avoid multiplicity of litigation and ensure effective adjudication

Consequently, the Civil Review Application was dismissed at the admission stage

no order was made as to costs