The Hon'ble Supreme Court recently made a ruling regarding errors and their review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. The court held that an error that is not readily apparent and requires a process of reasoning to detect cannot be considered an error apparent on the face of the record, thereby not justifying the court to exercise its power of review. The Supreme Court also provided a summary of the principles relevant to the exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

Facts:-

1. The case heard by the Supreme Court was a Special Leave Petition (SLP) arising from an order passed by the High Court in its review jurisdiction. The High Court had set aside an earlier order passed in a Writ Petition, which was previously allowed, based on the erroneous rejection of a survey report and reliance on certain private reports. The original Petitioner challenged this order before the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had exceeded its review jurisdiction and treated the matter as an appeal. The Petitioner cited Perry Kansagra Vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra (2019) 20 SCC 753 and Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. Assam SEB (2020) 2 SCC 677 in support of his arguments.
2. The Respondent supported the order of the High Court, contending that the order being reviewed was erroneous as the High Court had relied on forged documents.
3. The Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether the High Court was justified in exercising its review jurisdiction and setting aside a reasoned judgment and order passed in the main Writ Petition.
4. The Supreme Court relied on the principles summarized in Perry Kangsara, which stated that review proceedings are not by way of appeal and should strictly adhere to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. The court can only exercise its review jurisdiction when an error is self-evident and strikes one upon mere inspection of the record. The court cannot review decisions based on erroneous merits, but can do so for sufficient reason, including a misconception of fact or law. Finally, invoking the doctrine of “actus curuae neminem gravabit” can also necessitate a review application.
5. The Supreme Court also relied upon Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. where it was held that the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC is limited, and the Petitioner cannot re-argue questions already addressed and decided. An error that requires a process of reasoning to detect cannot be considered an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the court's power of review.
6. Applying the above principles, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court's review jurisdiction order, finding that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by exercising review jurisdiction not vested in it under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC¹.

By - Chaitanyaa Bhandarkar