Review may correct an apparent error treating distinct jewellery items as duplicates and restore the 20-sovereign decree.

The petitioner sought return of gold jewellery and other wedding articles, or their stated value, from the respondent.

The trial court decreed the claim for 20 sovereigns (160 grams) of gold or the plaint value with interest; the first appellate court affirmed that decree.

In the respondent’s second appeal, the High Court reduced the gold entitlement to 15 sovereigns, reasoning that certain jewellery items were repeated in the plaint schedule, and directed payment of the value as of the plaint date.

The petitioner sought review, contending that the scheduled items were distinct and that the reduction was erroneous. She also sought the present value of the gold rather than its value on the plaint date.

Whether the reduction of the petitioner’s entitlement from 20 to 15 sovereigns, based on an asserted repetition of scheduled items, disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.

Whether the direction to calculate the monetary value of the gold as of the plaint date could be altered in review to reflect its present value.

Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC permit review on grounds including an error apparent on the face of the record or other sufficient reason; review is not a rehearing of the dispute or an opportunity to secure a different decision by rearguing the merits.

The Court relied on Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik (2006) 4 SCC 78, which explains that review is available where the decision is manifestly incorrect, not merely because another view may be possible.

The Court also relied on the principle that a decree’s monetary valuation cannot be modified in the absence of an appeal or cross-appeal, and referred to Sundaram v. Jim Kumar, C.R.P.(PD)(MD) No. 1555 of 2017, concerning refusal to amend a claim to reflect subsequently increased gold prices.

The plaint schedule listed the earrings and Vaalai Poo chains as separate items with different weights. The Court therefore found that the second-appeal judgment’s premise that items 4 and 5 were repeated as items 8 and 9 was incorrect on the face of the record, warranting review of the reduction from 20 to 15 sovereigns.

However, the petitioner had not appealed or cross-appealed the direction fixing monetary value as of the plaint date, and had pursued execution on that basis. The Court accordingly held that the valuation could not be revised in review to reflect present gold prices.

The alternative monetary value remained fixed as of the plaint date; the request for present value was dismissed.