The Delhi High Court held that to invoke review jurisdiction, there must be a glaring omission, patent mistake or a grave error in the impugned judgment. An order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected in review merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law.
While exercising the power of review, the court/tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
The term ‘mistake or error apparent’ by its very meaning implies an error which is apparent on the face of the record of the case and does not require comprehensive examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. It must be an error of inadvertence. Mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking review jurisdiction.
The same was held in the matter of Amar Nath vs. Jee Ram & Anr. Review Pet. No.254/2017.
The Respondents filed a suit for possession against the Petitioner in respect of their property which was decreed vide judgment dated 22.03.2011. The aggrieved Petitioner challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court by RFA No. 355/2011 which was dismissed in default on 21.11.2013. The Petitioner thereafter filed CM No.932/2014 for restoration of the RFA No. 355/2011, which was considered by the Court on 22.04.2014. During hearing of the aforesaid CM, it was pointed out that there was a settlement between the parties before the Executing Court which was duly recorded vide order dated 21.03.2014. In view of order dated 21.03.2014 passed by the Executing Court, CM No. 932/2014 for restoration of RFA No. 355/2011 was disposed of on 22.04.2014 accordingly.
The respondents thereafter filed an application under Section 152 of CPC for modification of the decree to incorporate the details of property in question in the decree-sheet which was allowed on 22.01.2016. After the amended decree sheet was prepared on 04.02.2017, the Petitioner filed RFA No. 394/2017 pleading that the amended decree gives him fresh cause of action to file the appeal, which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 15.05.2017. Review was sought of the judgment dated 15.05.2017 on the ground that the RFA No. 355/2011 filed by the Petitioner against the impugned judgment and decree which has been dismissed in default on 21.11.2013 is not a bar in maintaining the second/present RFA.
The Delhi High Court relying upon the decisions of Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi 1997 (8) SCC 715, Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000) 6 SCC 224, Haridas Das vs. Usha Rani Banik and others 2006 (4) SCC 78, Union of India (UOI) v. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors. (2013) 8 SCC 337 held that in the given facts and circumstances, there was no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record requiring a review. All pleas raised before the Court were addressed and only after considering those pleas, the judgment in the RFA No. 394/2017 was passed. The Petitioner cannot be permitted to re-argue the very same points in a review petition. The Court found no sufficient cause shown for reviewing the judgment. It was further held that as the point is already dealt with and answered, the petitioner is not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.