Review jurisdiction cannot reappreciate facts or function as an appellate remedy.

The underlying writ petition sought a mandamus for demolition of unauthorised apartment construction on 51.08 cents of land at Uyyankondan Thirumalai Village, Tiruchirappalli, restoration of the building in accordance with the sanctioned plan, and disciplinary action against officials who had failed to act against the violations.

The original Division Bench found that the promoter had constructed a four-storey building containing 92 flats in deviation of the approved plan, converted car-parking and common areas into commercial space, improperly located the electricity transformer, encroached upon the Highways Road, and continued construction and sale of flats without obtaining revised planning permission.

By judgment dated 11.01.2023, the Court directed demolition of the unauthorised construction, restoration of the building and transformer in accordance with the sanctioned plan, departmental action against delinquent officials, and payment of compensation or provision of alternative accommodation to flat purchasers by the promoter.

The present review applications were filed by flat purchasers, including T.D. Raja, who were third parties to the original writ petition and contended that their interests would be adversely affected by the directions.

Similar purchasers had previously filed impleading applications in the writ petition, and their submissions had been considered while passing the original judgment.

One purchaser also approached the Supreme Court alleging that he had not been impleaded; the Supreme Court directed that the judgment be kept in abeyance until the High Court considered the application said to have been filed by him.

The High Court found that no such application was pending or available on record and observed that a misleading statement had been made before the Supreme Court.

Whether the review applicants had established any ground under Section 114 CPC read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, including an error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review of the judgment dated 11.01.2023.

Whether the review jurisdiction could be invoked by the flat purchasers to reconsider the merits of the original directions concerning demolition, compensation, and alternative accommodation, effectively converting the review proceedings into an appeal.

Whether the applicants were entitled to a stay of the eviction notice dated 21.01.2023 pending consideration of the review proceedings.

The Court applied Section 114 CPC and Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 CPC, under which review is permissible only on limited grounds such as discovery of new and important matter or evidence, mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reason.

Relying on Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, the Court held that an error which requires a process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record and that review cannot be used as an appeal in disguise.

In T. Thimmaiah v. Venkatachala Raju, (2008) 11 SCC 107, the Supreme Court held that a review court cannot reappreciate the same facts and ignore the restrictions imposed by Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

In Sivakami v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2018) 4 SCC 587, it was reiterated that review jurisdiction is narrow and distinct from appellate jurisdiction, with the appellate court having a substantially wider power to reconsider issues.

The Court also relied upon the principle that a coordinate Division Bench exercising review jurisdiction cannot sit in appeal over the earlier judgment of another coordinate Division Bench.

The Court held that the applicants’ objections had already been raised through impleading applications filed in the original writ proceedings and had been considered before the judgment dated 11.01.2023 was delivered.

Their attempt to reassert that they were innocent purchasers and that the demolition directions would prejudice their rights did not disclose any patent or self-evident error; it sought reconsideration of matters already examined by the original Division Bench.

The Court further found that the applicants, being third parties to the writ petition, were indirectly seeking appellate examination of the original judgment, which was impermissible under Section 114 CPC and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

The alleged non-filing of an application represented before the Supreme Court also weakened the applicants’ request for relief, as the record disclosed no pending application requiring consideration.

Since the review applications did not satisfy the governing legal standard, there was no basis to stay the eviction notice or suspend the effect of the original directions.

It held that no error apparent on the face of the record or other permissible ground for review had been established, and that the applications were an impermissible attempt to obtain appellate reconsideration of the judgment dated 11.01.2023.

Accordingly, Review Application (MD) No.29 of 2023 was dismissed; the application seeking leave to file the other review application was dismissed and the review petition was rejected at the scrutiny stage; and the petition seeking stay of the eviction notice dated 21.01.2023 was also rejected.

There was no order as to costs, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.