Supreme Court: While considering an appeal wherein the Division Bench of Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti*, JJ., had to consider the validity of Madras High Court’s impugned decision to remand the matter related to the Appellant’s status as a co-parcener in a partition suit to the Trial Court.
The Court upon perusing the impugned order, delved into relevant precedents detailing the distinction between the power of review and appellate power and restated the power and scope of review jurisdiction, thereby summing up the grounds for Review as follows:
-
The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.
-
Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record.8 Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.
-
The phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason’ means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories.
Background:
S, the husband of the 2nd Respondent, filed suit in 2000 in the Court of the District Munsiff at Ponneri for partition of the suit schedule properties into two equal shares and allot one such share to him. The suit in question was filed against MN, the father of the plaintiff. The original plaintiff and the defendant, now deceased, were represented by the respective heirs and successors in interest. The plaint stated that the suit schedule properties were ancestral properties and were available for partition between the first plaintiff and the first defendant, being members of the Hindu Undivided Family. The suit was filed admittedly without impleading the Appellant in this civil appeal, who is the daughter of MN.
On 25-02-2003, the Trial Court passed the ex-parte preliminary decree as prayed for. The first defendant, post the preliminary decree, executed a registered sale deed dated 27-12-2004 in favour of 1st Respondent for item nos. 4 to 7 of the suit property, and also a settlement deed for item nos. 1 to 3, and 8 to 10 in favour of the Appellant.
The subject matter of the appeal arose from the steps taken by the Appellant in an application filed in 2018, wherein she prayed for amending the preliminary decree in terms of her status as one of the co-parceners and entitling her to an equal share along with the father and the brother. The application for amendment of the preliminary decree was opposed by the first and second Respondents.
The Appellant submitted that the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (‘HSA’), grants daughters equal coparcenary rights by birth. As a daughter of a living coparcener at the time the act came into force, she is entitled to a 1/3rd share.
The Respondents objected, stating that the application was barred by limitation. Furthermore, it was submitted that the Appellant is estopped from challenging the sale to the first Respondent, as she was an attesting witness to the sale deed. Moreover, the preliminary decree had already ascertained and finalized the shares in 2003, before the 2005 amendment came into force.
On 08-03-2019, the Trial Court dismissed the petition to amend the preliminary decree dated 25-02-2003 stating that the Appellant was impleaded only as the legal representative of her deceased father, and that she merely stepped into his shoes and was only entitled to the share as determined by the decree.
Aggrieved with the dismissal of her application, the Appellant approached the Madras High Court via a Civil Revision Petition (CRP) whereby the High Court set aside the Trial Court’s order dated 08-03-2019.
Then the 1st Respondent filed a Review Petition and through the impugned order dated 19-10-2024, the review application was allowed. The High Court remanded the matter to the Trial Court for fresh consideration. Hence, the present civil appeal was filed before the Supreme Court.
Counsel for the Appellant argued that that the High Court fell into a grave and serious error in not appreciating the review jurisdiction conferred on the Courts by Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’). It was stated that the scope of judicial review of an interlocutory order under Article 227 of the Constitution is extremely narrow and limited.
Per contra, the Respondent argued that the impugned order did not transgress the review jurisdiction. The matter has been remanded to the Trial Court. The consideration of a fact or reversing an earlier finding, if examined carefully, cannot be termed as in any manner exceeding the review jurisdiction. The Respondent submitted that the Appellant had been a silent spectator and cannot reopen the preliminary decree to claim the settled share of late MN or her 1/3rd share.
Court’s Assessment:
Perusing the facts, its legal trajectory and contentions, the Court had to consider whether the impugned order conformed to the scope of review of an order under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC. “The exercise or excess of jurisdiction is determinative on the order under review and the review order”. To decide the matter, the Court compared the High Court’s analysis in the Civil Revision Petition filed by the Appellant and the impugned Review Order.
The Court pointed out that that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deals with the power of review of the courts.
The Court pointed out that the power of review is different from appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions:
-
The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
-
Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an appellate court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court.
-
In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.
-
The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power.
-
The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors.
The Court further stated that, “To wit through a review application, an apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to explain the said error. The intimation of error at the first blush enables the court to correct apparent errors instead of the higher court correcting such errors. At both the above stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted”.
The Court therefore restated the principles and grounds for Review Jurisdiction and emphasised that Courts ought not mix up or overlap one jurisdiction with another jurisdiction.
Conclusion:
-
Coming onto the impugned order, the Court pointed out that the impugned order did not have an error apparent on the face of the record but had taken up an error on reappreciation of the case and counter case of the parties.
-
The review order recorded a few findings extending far beyond the actual working out of prayers in a suit for partition. Therefore, the impugned order had exceeded the jurisdiction of review by a Court.
Therefore, the Court set aside the impugned review order; restored the High Court’s order in the CRP filed by the Appellant and directed Trial Court to dispose of the petitions expeditiously.
[Malleeswari v. K. Sugna, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927, decided on 8-9-2025]
*Judgment by Justice S.V. Bhatti
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. V. Prabhakar, Sr. Adv. Ms. E. R. Sumathy, AOR Mrs. Jyoti Parasher, Adv. Ms. Harmeet Kaur, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy, AOR Mr. Shilp Vinod, Adv. Mr. Gokulakrisnan, Adv. Mr. Avinash Ranjan, Adv. Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, AOR Mr. Selvaraj Mahendran, Adv. Mr. C. Adhikesavan, Adv. Mr. Harikrishnan P.V., Adv. Mr. Dhass Prathap Singh, Adv. Mr. C. Kavin Ananth, Adv. Mrs. Vibha Srivastava, Adv.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
