{"id":286738,"date":"2023-03-11T12:00:36","date_gmt":"2023-03-11T06:30:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=286738"},"modified":"2023-03-11T10:56:05","modified_gmt":"2023-03-11T05:26:05","slug":"can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/","title":{"rendered":"Review application cannot be used as an Appeal in disguise, reiterates Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><script type=\"text\/javascript\">\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 document.title = 'Review Power of High Court not same as appeal: Supreme Court | SCC Blog'\n\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 document.querySelector('meta[name=\"description\"]').setAttribute(\"content\", \"Supreme Court reiterates using review power of High Court as an appeal is impermissible by law.\");<\/script><\/p>\n<div style=\"text-align: justify; line-height: 150%;\">\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">Supreme Court<\/span>: Exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction, the division bench of <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\">M.R. Shah*<\/span> and C.T. Ravikumar J.J., held that while allowing the review application and setting aside the judgment dated 03-03-2017, the Madras High Court had exceeded its review jurisdiction under Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523540\">47 Rule 1<\/a> read with Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523700\">114<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\">Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/a> (&#8216;CPC&#39;)<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">In the matter at hand, the appellant being aggrieved by the order passed by the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation in respect of the pathway comprised in Indian Bank Colony, Simco Meter Road, Tiruchirappalli Taluk and District, preferred a writ petition before the High Court. The Respondents had relied on the report of the Survey Department and the measurements given in the Survey Report.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">However, the High Court had discarded the Survey Report and chose to rely upon other two reports. Consequently, the High Court had allowed the review petition and dismissed the other connected writ petitions as well as the contempt petition which was the subject matter of appeal in the present case.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court relied upon <i>Perry Kansagra<\/i> v. <i>Smriti Madan Kansagra<\/i> <span style=\"font-weight: bold;\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/qFgz0ehm\">(2019) 20 SCC 753<\/a><\/span> which had stated that while exercising the review jurisdiction in an application under Order <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523540\">47 Rule 1<\/a> read with Section <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0001523700\">114<\/a> of <a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink.aspx?q=JTXT-0002726944\">CPC<\/a>, the Review Court does not sit in an appeal over its own order. It was observed that a rehearing of the matter was impermissible in law and the same cannot be considered as an appeal in disguise. It was further clarified that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view, thus, the same was wholly unjustified to rewrite a judgment by which the controversy had already been decided.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Bench opined that the High Court had erred in its reasoning by relying on the Survey Report which was discarded by the judgement passed in the main petition. Once the said Survey Report was adjudicated upon by the High Court, thereafter the same could not have been considered again while deciding the review petition.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">The Court, therefore, stated that the High Court while deciding the review application under Order 47 Rule read with Section 114 CPC has exercised its appellate jurisdiction against the order dated 03-03-2017 which is wholly impermissible.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\"><i>&#8220;An erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before the higher forum but cannot be a subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.&#8221;<\/i> stated the Bench while setting aside the order passed by the High Court in allowing the review application.<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-bottom: 3%;\">Consequently, the Bench remitted back the contempt petition and the connected writ petitions before the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits.<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt; margin-bottom: 3%;\">[<span style=\"font-weight: bold; color: #632423;\">S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan, <a href=\"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/DocumentLink\/yY0VFpTG\">(2023) SCC OnLine SC 185<\/a>, decided on 24-02-2023<\/span>]<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-indent: 18pt;\"><strong><span style=\"color: #000080;\">Judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah<\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n<blockquote class=\"wp-embedded-content\" data-secret=\"r4NxhFPfID\"><p><a href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/16\/know-thy-judge-justice-m-r-shah\/\">Know Thy Judge | Justice M. R. Shah<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" class=\"wp-embedded-content\" sandbox=\"allow-scripts\" security=\"restricted\" style=\"position: absolute; clip: rect(1px, 1px, 1px, 1px);\" title=\"&#8220;Know Thy Judge | Justice M. R. Shah&#8221; &#8212; SCC Blog\" src=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2022\/05\/16\/know-thy-judge-justice-m-r-shah\/embed\/#?secret=XPzbniR3fI#?secret=r4NxhFPfID\" data-secret=\"r4NxhFPfID\" width=\"600\" height=\"338\" frameborder=\"0\" marginwidth=\"0\" marginheight=\"0\" scrolling=\"no\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<hr\/>\n<p>Advocates who appeared in this case :<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\">For the appellant- Advocate V. Prabhakar<\/p>\n<p style=\"margin-left: 18pt;\">For the respondent- Advocate Haripriya Padmanabhan<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p style=\"font-style: italic;\">&#8220;An erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before the higher forum but cannot be a subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC&#8221;, stated the Supreme Court<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67517,"featured_media":286757,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,9],"tags":[30393,27414,22394,38120,5363,13551],"class_list":["post-286738","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-supremecourt","tag-contempt-petition","tag-cpc","tag-review-application","tag-review-jurisdiction","tag-supreme-court","tag-writ-petition"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v26.4 (Yoast SEO v26.4) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Review application cannot be used as an Appeal in disguise, reiterates Supreme Court | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction, the division bench of M.R. Shah* and C.T. Ravikumar J.J., held that while allowing the review application\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Review application cannot be used as an Appeal in disguise, reiterates Supreme Court\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction, the division bench of M.R. Shah* and C.T. Ravikumar J.J., held that while allowing the review application\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2023-03-11T06:30:36+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-703.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"886\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"590\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Editor\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/\",\"name\":\"Review application cannot be used as an Appeal in disguise, reiterates Supreme Court | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-703.png\",\"datePublished\":\"2023-03-11T06:30:36+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\"},\"description\":\"Exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction, the division bench of M.R. Shah* and C.T. Ravikumar J.J., held that while allowing the review application\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-703.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-703.png\",\"width\":886,\"height\":590},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Review application cannot be used as an Appeal in disguise, reiterates Supreme Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624\",\"name\":\"Editor\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Editor\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Review application cannot be used as an Appeal in disguise, reiterates Supreme Court | SCC Times","description":"Exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction, the division bench of M.R. Shah* and C.T. Ravikumar J.J., held that while allowing the review application","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Review application cannot be used as an Appeal in disguise, reiterates Supreme Court","og_description":"Exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction, the division bench of M.R. Shah* and C.T. Ravikumar J.J., held that while allowing the review application","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2023-03-11T06:30:36+00:00","og_image":[{"width":886,"height":590,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-703.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"Editor","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Editor","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/","name":"Review application cannot be used as an Appeal in disguise, reiterates Supreme Court | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-703.png","datePublished":"2023-03-11T06:30:36+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624"},"description":"Exercising its civil appellate jurisdiction, the division bench of M.R. Shah* and C.T. Ravikumar J.J., held that while allowing the review application","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-703.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-703.png","width":886,"height":590},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/03\/11\/can-power-of-review-be-used-to-re-write-a-settled-judgement-appeal-in-disguise-supreme-court-denies\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Review application cannot be used as an Appeal in disguise, reiterates Supreme Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/84913f82186a8dea042dc300d5751624","name":"Editor","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/d822f35f9fcd11386aa47345cde7945e45a64da7205eebe9784f21d0cd223603?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Editor"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/scc-online-editor\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/03\/MicrosoftTeams-image-703.png","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":359490,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/09\/supreme-court-restates-principles-for-review-jurisdiction-grounds\/","url_meta":{"origin":286738,"position":0},"title":"SC restates principles on power, scope &amp; grounds for Review Jurisdiction; Sets aside Madras HC review order on daughter\u2019s status as co-parcener","author":"Sucheta","date":"September 9, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cTo 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\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Review Jurisdiction grounds","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Review-Jurisdiction-grounds.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Review-Jurisdiction-grounds.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Review-Jurisdiction-grounds.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/Review-Jurisdiction-grounds.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":198318,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/07\/09\/review-petition-of-the-nirbhaya-gangrape-convicts-dismissed-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":286738,"position":1},"title":"Review petition of the \u2018Nirbhaya\u2019 Gangrape convicts dismissed: Supreme Court [Judgment]","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"July 9, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThere has to be an error apparent on the face of\u00a0record\u00a0leading to miscarriage of justice to exercise the review jurisdiction under Article 137.\u201d Supreme Court:\u00a0While envisaging the essence of Article 137 of the Constitution of India by stating that\u00a0\u201cArticle 137 empowers the Supreme Court to review any judgment pronounced or\u2026","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/09\/Supreme-Court_Colour.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":365246,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/30\/doctrine-of-merger-not-attracted-by-dismissed-slp-jk-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":286738,"position":2},"title":"Dismissal of SLP by Supreme Court with or without reasons, will not attract the Doctrine of Merger: J&amp;K and Ladakh HC","author":"Editor","date":"October 30, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cWhile exercising the review jurisdiction, it must be borne in mind that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and must strictly be confined to the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908\u201d.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Doctrine of Merger","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/jk-86.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/jk-86.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/jk-86.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/jk-86.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":315516,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/02\/28\/registry-cannot-decide-whether-dismissed-review-petition-merited-relook-through-curative-jurisdiction-supreme-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":286738,"position":3},"title":"Registry cannot decide whether dismissed review petition merited relook through curative jurisdiction: Supreme Court","author":"Ridhi","date":"February 28, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court highlighted that the provision for filing curative petitions was incorporated in Order XLVIII of the 2013 Rules.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"curative petition","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/curative-petition.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/curative-petition.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/curative-petition.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/curative-petition.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":306794,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2023\/11\/08\/review-petition-has-limited-purpose-cannot-be-allowed-to-be-appeal-in-disguise-sc-regurgitates-scope-of-review\/","url_meta":{"origin":286738,"position":4},"title":"Review Petition has limited purpose, cannot be allowed to be appeal in disguise: Supreme Court regurgitates law on scope of review","author":"Apoorva","date":"November 8, 2023","format":false,"excerpt":"Supreme Court reiterated that a co-ordinate Bench cannot comment upon the judgment rendered by another co-ordinate Bench of equal strength and that subsequent decision or a judgment of a co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Case Briefs&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"scope of review","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/scope-of-review.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/scope-of-review.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/scope-of-review.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/11\/scope-of-review.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":365354,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/10\/31\/uncluttering-the-supreme-court-institutional-remedies-for-supreme-court-congestion\/","url_meta":{"origin":286738,"position":5},"title":"Uncluttering the Supreme Court: Institutional Remedies for Supreme Court Congestion","author":"Editor","date":"October 31, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"by Seema Bengani*","rel":"","context":"In &quot;Op Eds&quot;","block_context":{"text":"Op Eds","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/op-ed\/legal-analysis\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Supreme Court Congestion","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Supreme-Court-Congestion.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Supreme-Court-Congestion.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Supreme-Court-Congestion.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Supreme-Court-Congestion.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286738","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67517"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=286738"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/286738\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/286757"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=286738"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=286738"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=286738"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}