Review jurisdiction cannot reassess the sufficiency of delay explanations absent an apparent error.

The petitioners presented a second appeal on 24 January 2020, which the Registry returned on 29 January 2020 for curing defects.

They represented it on 19 September 2025, accompanied by an application to condone the delay. They attributed the delay to the COVID-19 pandemic and the misplacement of the case bundle at their advocate’s office.

On 27 February 2026, the Court dismissed the delay-condonation application and consequently rejected the second appeal at the SR stage. The petitioners sought review, contending that the explanation and supporting material had not been properly considered and that the COVID-19 limitation exclusion had not been extended to them.

1. Whether the petitioners established a ground under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC to review the order dismissing their application to condone the delay in representing the second appeal.

2. Whether exclusion of the COVID-19 limitation period entitled the petitioners to condonation without a sufficient explanation for the delay outside that period.

Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC permit review on discovery of new and important evidence unavailable despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason analogous to those grounds.

Review is not an appeal or a rehearing; it cannot be used to reappreciate evidence or substitute a different view, and an error requiring a process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the record.

The Court relied on Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd., Review Petition (C) No. 238 of 2003 (10 August 2005); Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2000) 6 SCC 224; and Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, SLP (C) No. 12787 of 2025, MANU/SC/1240/2025.

Applying the Supreme Court’s directions in In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, the period from 15 March 2020 to 28 February 2022 is excluded where applicable, but a party must still show sufficient cause for delay outside that period.

The Court also noted the liberal approach to condonation in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katiji, (1987) 2 SCC 107, while clarifying that it does not require condonation regardless of the explanation offered.

The petitioners’ challenge turned on whether their explanations—COVID-19 restrictions, missing documents, and misplacement of the appeal bundle—were sufficient to justify the delay.

The Court held that reassessing those explanations and the materials already considered would amount to rehearing the merits of the delay-condonation application, which is outside review jurisdiction.

Although the COVID-19 period was excluded as directed by the Supreme Court, that exclusion did not dispense with the need to explain the remaining delay.

The bundle-misplacement assertion, even if relied upon as a factual explanation, did not itself disclose a patent error in the earlier order.

The petitioners therefore showed neither an error apparent on the face of the record nor another review ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

The Review Application was dismissed, with no order as to costs.