Review jurisdiction cannot reappreciate evidence or rehear merits absent a patent error.

The petitioners sought review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC of the High Court’s order dated 8 September 2026 in W.A. No. 729 of 2026.

That order allowed the writ appeal, set aside the Single Judge’s order, and directed implementation of an order under Section 250 of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959 (MPLRC), holding that a pending civil suit does not by itself suspend such an order; the civil court’s eventual decision on title would prevail.

The review petitioners argued that their title documents had not been considered, that they had not received an effective opportunity to be heard, and that the pending civil suit, the original applicant’s locus, and the risk of irreparable loss required reconsideration.

1. Whether the asserted non-consideration of documents, their alleged illegibility, or the claimed lack of an effective hearing disclosed an error apparent, new evidence, or another sufficient reason for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC

2. Whether the petitioners’ remaining grounds—including the pending civil suit, title, the original applicant’s locus, and alleged irreparable loss—could be reconsidered in review

Order 47 Rule 1 CPC permits review on discovery of new and important matter or evidence that, despite due diligence, was unavailable when the order was made; an error apparent on the face of the record; or another sufficient reason.

Under Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, an error requiring reasoning to identify is not an apparent error, and review cannot operate as an appeal in disguise.

Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati similarly holds that review is not a rehearing on the merits, that a mere possibility of two views is insufficient, and that reappreciation of evidence is not permissible in review.

In the underlying appeal, the Court held that an order under Section 250 MPLRC remains enforceable unless stayed or restrained by the civil court, while the civil court’s decision on title ultimately prevails.

The petitioners acknowledged that the documents had not been submitted at the original hearing, and the documents relied upon predated the order; they did not establish that due diligence could not have enabled their earlier production.

The record also did not show that their documents had been treated as illegible or that they had sought leave to file further documents or requested a further hearing.

The remaining grounds had either been raised or could have been raised in the writ appeal, where the Court had addressed the effect of the pending civil suit and left title to the civil court.

The petitioners’ request therefore sought reconsideration of the merits and reappreciation of material, which review jurisdiction does not permit.

It dismissed the review petition without costs and observed that any challenge to the order on its merits lay before a higher forum, not by way of review.