Supreme Court.
Supreme Court News: SC Clarifies Scope of Review Jurisdiction, Reaffirms It Cannot Be an Appeal in Disguise: New Delhi, September 8, 2025 — The Supreme Court, in a significant ruling on Monday, laid down clear guidelines on the scope of review jurisdiction, reinforcing that review petitions are not meant to function as appeals in disguise. The Court reiterated that the purpose of a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) is limited to addressing clear errors on the face of the record, and should not be confused with an appeal, which involves a more comprehensive reassessment of the case.
The judgment, delivered by a Bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and SVN Bhatti, came in the case of Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another, where the Court emphasized the restrictive nature of review proceedings. It clarified that the function of a review petition is not to re-evaluate the merits of a case, but to correct manifest errors that are evident without prolonged examination.
Court’s Guidance on Grounds for Review
The Bench outlined the limited grounds on which a review petition may be entertained, distinguishing them from the broader powers of appellate courts. These include:
Discovery of New Evidence: If new and important evidence or facts come to light that could not have been presented earlier despite due diligence.
Mistake Apparent on Record: If there is a clear, obvious mistake on the face of the record. This must be an error so apparent that it does not require extensive reasoning or debate. A mere wrong decision is not grounds for review.
Sufficient Reason: Any other reason deemed sufficient by the Court, but only if it is similar in nature to the first two grounds.
Justice Amanullah, in his judgment, emphasized that review petitions are not meant to reappraise the facts or evidence of a case. He stated: “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. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.”
Case Background: Partition Dispute
The case involved a long-running partition dispute between a father and his children. The original suit was filed in 2000 by a son against his father, in which the daughter was not included. A preliminary decree was passed ex-parte in 2003. Subsequently, the father sold part of the property to a third party in 2004 and later settled the remainder in favor of his daughter.
The daughter sought to amend the preliminary decree in 2018, arguing that she should be recognized as a coparcener under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. However, the trial court rejected her application, ruling that the amendment could not apply retrospectively. The High Court, in 2022, overturned this decision and allowed the daughter to claim coparcener rights.
In a review petition filed by the daughter in 2024, the High Court remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration. The daughter then approached the Supreme Court, challenging the review order.
Supreme Court’s Decision
The Supreme Court found that the High Court had exceeded its limited review jurisdiction by reassessing the facts of the case and overturning its earlier findings, which was akin to exercising appellate powers. The Court noted that the review order had failed to identify any apparent error on the face of the record and instead involved a reappreciation of the case. The Court observed: “The impugned order has not adverted to an error apparent on the face of the record, but has taken up an error on reappreciation of the case and counter case of the parties.”
The Court reiterated that review jurisdiction is strictly confined to correcting manifest errors and not for re-evaluating the merits of the case. As a result, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s review order and restored the earlier judgment recognizing the daughter’s entitlement as a coparcener under the 2005 amendment.
READ: Remarks on Cooking, Clothing Not “Cruelty” Under IPC Section 498A
Key Outcome of the Case
The trial court was directed to dispose of all pending applications within three months, ensuring that the case progresses expeditiously.
The judgment serves as an important reminder that the scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and that courts must be cautious not to blur the lines between review and appeal processes. It reaffirms that a review petition is a remedy for errors apparent on the record, and cannot be used to reargue the entire case or reconsider evidence.
READ: Supreme Court Refers Key Motor Accident Compensation Issue to Larger Bench
Legal Representation
Senior Advocate V Prabhakar and Advocates E R Sumathy, Jyoti Parasher, and Harmeet Kaur represented the petitioner (daughter).
Advocates Shobha Ramamoorthy, Shilp Vinod, Gokulakrisnan, Avinash Ranjan, Dr. G Sivabalamurugan, Selvaraj Mahendran, C Adhikesavan, Harikrishnan PV, Dhass Prathap Singh, C Kavin Ananth, and Vibha Srivastava appeared for the respondents.
READ: “Online News Will Disappear, Only ChatGPT Will Remain”: Media Giants to Delhi High Court
Key Takeaways:
- The Supreme Court has reiterated that review petitions should not be treated as appeals.
- The Court provided clarity on the narrow grounds available for review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
- The ruling emphasized the limited role of review proceedings in correcting obvious errors, not in reassessing the merits of a case.
- This decision is expected to guide courts in properly applying review jurisdiction and ensuring that it is not misused to re-examine cases in the guise of correcting errors.
