Review jurisdiction cannot correct an alleged misinterpretation of concession absent an error apparent on the record.

The review petitioner sought review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Gauhati High Court’s judgment dated 10.06.2026 in FAO No. 62/2025.

The underlying dispute concerned 8,61,918 equity shares of B & A Limited held in a joint demat account.

In the original injunction proceedings, the opposite party had stated that she had no objection to an injunction restraining her from transferring the shares.

The High Court subsequently set aside the Trial Court’s order and directed the respondent not to transfer the shares to any other account, while also directing HDFC Bank not to facilitate such transfer.

The review petitioner contended that her counsel had conceded only that the shares would not be transferred or alienated to any third party during the suit, and had not consented to restraint against transmission of the shares to her individual account.

Whether the judgment dated 10.06.2026 contained an error apparent on the face of the record by treating the petitioner’s concession as extending to restraint against transmission of the shares from the joint demat account to her individual account.

Whether the operative direction restraining transfer of the shares to “any other account” exceeded the scope of the concession made before the Trial Court and therefore warranted review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC.

Whether the restraint was inconsistent with NSDL Rule 12.6.1, under which transmission of shares in a joint demat account upon the death of one holder requires an application in the prescribed form and supporting documents.

The Court applied Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC, under which review is permissible, inter alia, where there is an error apparent on the face of the record; review cannot ordinarily be used to reargue the merits or correct a mere change of interpretation.

The Court also considered NSDL Rule 12.6.1, which provides that, upon the death of one holder in a joint demat account, transmission of shares to the surviving holder’s individual demat account requires an application in the prescribed form accompanied by the requisite death certificate and supporting documents; such transmission is therefore not automatic.

The Court further proceeded on the principle that the effect of a party’s concession must be determined from the concession as recorded in the Trial Court’s proceedings and the judgment under review.

The Court held that the judgment under review had recorded the relevant concession as the petitioner’s absence of objection to an injunction restraining her from transferring the shares.

It found that the operative direction had been based on the interpretation of that concession, rather than on any explicit statement by counsel that the petitioner accepted restraint against transmission of the shares to her own individual account.

Nevertheless, the Court concluded that this did not establish an error apparent on the face of the record.

The review petition essentially challenged the interpretation and consequences of the earlier order, rather than identifying a patent and self-evident error justifying review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

The Court therefore declined to revisit the operative restraint or the reasoning adopted in the original appellate judgment.

The review petition was accordingly dismissed, and the directions contained in the judgment dated 10.06.2026—including the restraint against transfer of 8,61,918 shares to any other account and the direction to HDFC Bank not to facilitate such transfer—remained undisturbed.