Review jurisdiction cannot be used to re-hear merits or function as an appeal in disguise.

The petitioner sought a review of the High Court's order dated 05.07.2023, which had dismissed his challenge to a Trial Court order dated 15.09.2022.

In Title Suit No. 123 of 1987, the Trial Court closed the petitioner’s (defendant’s) evidence after a witness failed to appear for cross-examination, citing the suit's age and the numerous prior opportunities granted.

The petitioner argued that the witness's absence on 15.09.2022 was due to sudden illness and that the delay in the 1987 suit was partially attributable to court vacancies and the COVID-19 pandemic.

The petitioner contended that the High Court’s prior dismissal suffered from errors apparent on the face of the record.

1. Whether the petitioner established any error apparent on the face of the record or discovered new evidence sufficient to invoke the review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.

2. Whether a review petition can be utilized to re-appreciate factual findings or re-argue the merits of a case previously decided in a miscellaneous jurisdiction.

The court applied Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which limits review jurisdiction to the discovery of new/important evidence, mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record, or analogous "sufficient reasons".

It relied heavily on Malleeswari v. K. Suguna & Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927), which clarifies that review power is distinct from appellate power; it is not for rehearing or substituting a view, and an error must be manifest and patent, not one requiring a long-drawn process of reasoning to establish.

The Court observed that the petitioner’s grounds for review were essentially a reiteration of arguments already considered during the dismissal of the Civil Miscellaneous Case.

The Court emphasized that the Trial Court's decision to close evidence was justified by the extraordinary pendency of the suit (since 1987) and the repeated failure of the defendant to produce witnesses despite "last opportunities".

The High Court reasoned that the petitioner was seeking a re-appreciation of facts—specifically the circumstances of the witness's absence—which constitutes an attempt to treat the review as an "appeal in disguise".

Since the petitioner failed to point out a patent or manifest error that did not require detailed reasoning to uncover, the statutory requirements for review were not met.

The Court held that a review court does not sit in appeal over its own judgment and cannot correct an allegedly erroneous decision on merits unless the error is manifest and apparent on the face of the record.

No order as to costs was made.