Review jurisdiction cannot reappreciate evidence absent an error apparent on the face of the record.

The petitioner sought review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, of the High Court’s common judgment dated 03.04.2025 in F.A. No. 477 of 2022 and F.A. No. 428 of 2022.

By that judgment, the High Court affirmed the decree dated 08.02.2022 passed by the Vth District Judge, Ratlam, in C.S. No. 267A/2010, granting specific performance of an agreement to sell and related reliefs.

The petitioner disputed the findings concerning the agreement to sell dated 17.04.2009, the alleged payment of the balance consideration and readiness of the plaintiff, and the subsequent transfers of the property.

She contended that the appellate judgment incorrectly treated several disputed matters as undisputed, failed to properly consider documents marked Exhibits D/1 to D/7, and overlooked the denial of those documents by witnesses.

The respondent argued that the review petition sought impermissible re-appreciation of evidence; that the agreement, readiness and willingness, and the petitioner’s failure to establish forgery had been concurrently found in favour of the plaintiff; and that subsequent transfers were subject to the doctrine of lis pendens.

It was also brought to the Court’s notice that a sale deed had been executed by the Executing Court in favour of the respondent on 24.10.2025.

Whether the judgment dated 03.04.2025 contained an error apparent on the face of the record by recording disputed facts as undisputed or by failing to consider material documents and evidence.

Whether the review petition could be used to re-appreciate evidence or seek a different conclusion on the merits of the specific-performance dispute.

Whether the petitioner established any ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, including discovery of new and important evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any analogous sufficient reason, warranting review of the judgment.

The Court applied Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, under which review is permissible only upon discovery of new and important matter despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason analogous to those grounds.

Relying on S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan, Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club, and Rajender Singh v. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, the Court held that review is not an appeal in disguise, although a clear misconception of fact or law or non-consideration of material documents may justify review.

On the limits of review, the Court relied on Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd., Tirupati Rao v. M. Lingamaiah, Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury, and Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, holding that an error must be self-evident and not require a long-drawn process of reasoning; factual findings cannot be reconsidered merely because another view is possible.

The Court also noted the principles governing specific performance and lis pendens from Sughar Singh v. Hari Singh, Usha Sinha v. Dina Ram, and Shingara Singh v. Daljit Singh.

The Court examined the petitioner’s challenge in light of the narrow scope of review jurisdiction.

It held that the trial Court and the first appellate Court had concurrently evaluated the documentary and oral evidence and had recorded findings supporting the agreement to sell, the plaintiff’s readiness and willingness, and the failure of the petitioner to prove forgery.

The High Court’s appellate judgment had considered the relevant aspects of the case, and the petitioner’s assertion that Exhibits D/1 to D/7 deserved a different interpretation amounted to a challenge to the appreciation of evidence rather than identification of a patent error.

The Court therefore declined to reopen factual findings or substitute an alternative view.

Since the documents were not shown to have been wholly ignored and no self-evident error, newly discovered material, or other legally sufficient ground was established, the requirements of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC were not satisfied.

It held that no error apparent on the face of the record or other ground for review had been established, and that the petition impermissibly sought re-appreciation of evidence and reconsideration of concluded factual findings.

The review petition was accordingly dismissed, leaving undisturbed the High Court’s judgment dated 03.04.2025 affirming the decree for specific performance.