Review jurisdiction cannot reopen concluded proceedings absent an error apparent on the record.

The petitioner, who was respondent No. 4 in W.P. No. 18028 of 2026, sought review/recall of the order dated 24 July 2026.

The petitioner contended that the writ petitioner had suppressed the fact that a complaint by a student, Dilip Dhakad, had resulted in a show-cause notice, constitution of an enquiry committee, a further show-cause notice, recording of the writ petitioner’s statement, and submission of an enquiry report to the Dean on 2 September 2025.

The review petitioner further claimed that it had not effectively participated in the writ proceedings because of non-filing of the vakalatnama, allegedly due to communication difficulties between the Officer-in-Charge (OIC) and counsel and the OIC’s medical condition.

The writ petitioner opposed review, asserting that notice issued on 26 May 2026 was deemed duly served under Rule 11(1) of Chapter 15 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.

Whether the alleged suppression of material facts and the existence of an earlier departmental enquiry disclosed a new and important matter or an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 24 July 2026.

Whether the review petitioner established sufficient cause for its non-appearance or failure to file the vakalatnama in the writ proceedings, so as to justify recall of the ex parte order.

Whether the grounds raised by the petitioner fell within the limited scope of review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

The Court applied Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, under which review is maintainable only upon discovery of new and important matter or evidence despite due diligence, an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason.

Relying on Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320, the Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used for rehearing or reconsideration of an already decided matter.

Under State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta, (2008) 8 SCC 612, an error apparent must be prima facie visible and must not require detailed examination.

The Court also relied on Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India, 1980 Supp SCC 562, holding that review requires a manifest material error undermining the decision or resulting in miscarriage of justice, and Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715, which holds that an error requiring a process of reasoning is not an “error apparent on the face of the record”.

Service of notice was treated as sufficient under Rule 11(1) of Chapter 15 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court Rules read with Section 27 of the General Clauses Act.

The Court held that notice had been issued to the review petitioner on 26 May 2026 and, since it had not been returned unserved, service was deemed sufficient.

The petitioner had adequate opportunity to file its vakalatnama before the hearing date, notwithstanding the strike on 24 July 2026.

However, the explanation based on communication difficulties and the OIC’s medical condition was unsupported by any affidavit or date-wise particulars concerning service, appointment of the OIC, preparation of the vakalatnama, or its transmission to counsel.

The petitioner also failed to rebut the specific objections raised in the respondent’s return regarding its non-participation in the writ proceedings.

Consequently, the Court found no self-evident error, sufficient reason, or miscarriage of justice.

The petitioner’s challenge effectively sought reconsideration of the earlier order, which was impermissible in review jurisdiction.

It held that the alleged suppression, the departmental enquiry, and the explanation for non-appearance did not establish any new and important matter, error apparent on the face of the record, or sufficient reason under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

Finding the review petition devoid of merit, the Court dismissed Review Petition No. 1541 of 2026 and declined to recall or review the order dated 24 July 2026 passed in W.P. No. 18028 of 2026.