Review jurisdiction is limited to patent errors and cannot be exercised as an appeal in disguise.

The plaintiffs filed a civil suit in 2010 for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land at Survey No. 110, Shajapur, alleging they were owners despite the land being recorded in the name of a temple

The trial court dismissed the suit in 2011, and the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal in 2013

A Second Appeal was filed in 2020 by the legal heirs of Abdul Salim, along with an application to condone a delay of approximately six years and three days (2193 days)

On 15.01.2025, the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal, finding no "sufficient cause" for the delay because the original appellant was alive for nearly six years post-judgment and the co-appellant’s plea of unawareness was unbelievable

The petitioners sought a review of this dismissal, arguing the court failed to consider the merits of the case, the appellants' long-term possession, and the deceased's medical ailments

1. Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC to review the order dismissing the Second Appeal

2. Whether a review petition is maintainable for the purpose of re-arguing the merits of the case when the original appeal was dismissed on the grounds of limitation

The Court applied Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which limits review to the discovery of new evidence, errors apparent on the face of the record, or other sufficient reasons

It relied on Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320 to establish that a review is not maintainable for a "repetition of old and overruled arguments"

The Court further cited Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius (AIR 1954 SC 526) to clarify that review is not an "appeal in disguise"

Additionally, it applied the principle from Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. State of West Bengal that an error apparent must be strike-on-sight and not require a long-drawn process of reasoning

The Court reasoned that the scope of review is strictly circumscribed and cannot be used to achieve a re-hearing of the case on its merits

The petitioners’ arguments regarding their 50-year possession and the specific survey numbers pertained to the merits of the original suit, which the Court held irrelevant to a review of an order based on limitation

The Court found that the previous order had already considered the sufficiency of the cause for the 2193-day delay and determined that the appellants failed to justify the inaction during the six years the original plaintiff was alive

Since the petitioners failed to demonstrate a patent error or bring forth new evidence that was previously unavailable despite due diligence, the Court concluded that the requirements of Order 47 Rule 1 were not met

It held that an erroneous view of law or a desire to re-address the Court on merits does not constitute a ground for review

While the Court condoned the 206-day delay in filing the review petition itself [para. 1], it maintained that the dismissal of the Second Appeal for a six-year delay suffered from no error apparent on the face of the record