Review jurisdiction cannot reappreciate pleadings or rehear rejected arguments absent patent error.

The plaintiffs instituted a suit seeking declaration, possession and permanent injunction in respect of property bearing No. C-460, Defence Colony, New Delhi, including a room above the mezzanine floor and a terrace-store room.

During the suit, the plaintiffs filed an application under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, seeking judgment on alleged admissions made by Defendant No. 1 in the pleadings and documents.

By judgment dated 1 July 2026, the Court dismissed that application, holding that there was no categorical, unequivocal admission in the written statement or other material warranting judgment on admissions.

The plaintiffs thereafter filed the present review petition, contending that the Court had overlooked alleged admissions arising from the absence of specific denials in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the written statement, including admissions concerning an oral family settlement dated 14 April 1984 and a memorandum of family settlement dated 21 June 1991.

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

Review is not an appeal or a rehearing on merits; an error apparent must be patent and self-evident, not one requiring a lengthy process of reasoning.

The Court relied on Avtar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India, 1980 Supp SCC 562; Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715; Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy, (2022) 17 SCC 255; Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd., (2006) 5 SCC 501; Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320; and Inderchand Jain v. Motilal, (2009) 14 SCC 663, which establish that review cannot correct a merely erroneous decision, substitute an alternative view, or reopen concluded arguments.

The Court also applied Order XII Rule 6 CPC, requiring clear, unequivocal and unconditional admissions for judgment without trial, and held that deemed admissions under Order VIII Rules 4 and 5 CPC do not automatically satisfy that standard.

The Court found that the earlier judgment had considered the plaintiffs’ case regarding alleged admissions in the written statement and documents and had concluded that Defendant No. 1 consistently disputed the plaintiffs’ assertions and the contents of the relevant documents.

The plaintiffs’ contention that silence or lack of specific denial in paragraphs 6 and 7 amounted to deemed admission required examination and interpretation of the pleadings; it was therefore not a patent error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court further held that even where some admission may exist in the pleadings, Order XII Rule 6 requires an unequivocal and unconditional admission sufficient to justify disposal without trial.

Because the alleged admissions concerning the oral family arrangement and settlement documents were disputed or not unequivocal, they could not support judgment on admissions.

The review petition essentially sought re-appreciation of the pleadings and repetition of arguments already rejected, which was impermissible within the limited scope of review jurisdiction.

The plaintiffs had not established any ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, and the alleged admissions did not meet the threshold for judgment under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

The review petition was accordingly dismissed for want of merit; pending applications, if any, were also disposed of.