Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Non-Consideration of Recorded Arguments Constitutes Error Apparent on Face of Record: Andhra Pradesh High Court

“Non-consideration of the arguments advanced which have relevance to the issue involved or the grounds taken to challenge the order in appeal which are germane to the issue, but not addressed by the Court would be an error apparent on the face of the record and would furnish a ground for review.”— In a significant ruling regarding the scope of review jurisdiction, the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, comprising Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari and Justice Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, allowed a review petition, setting aside a prior appellate judgment that had failed to adjudicate upon specific legal contentions raised by the appellant.

The dispute traces back to a claim petition filed by the Review Petitioner (Palla Chenchu Harikala) under Order 21 Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) in an Execution Petition. The petitioner claimed an independent right to the schedule property, asserting she was the daughter of the original owner and entitled to a 1/4th share under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. She contended that the mortgage decree under execution was obtained without her knowledge and that she was not a party to the mortgage deed.

The Executing Court rejected her claim as not maintainable, primarily because she had not challenged the mortgage deed or impleaded the mortgagees in her separate suit for partition. Aggrieved, she filed an appeal (A.S. No. 59 of 2020), which was dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of the High Court on 05.01.2022. The appellate bench had upheld the dismissal on the ground of maintainability.

The Core Contention: Silence on Vital Arguments

The Review Petitioner approached the High Court arguing that the appellate judgment suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. Her counsel submitted that while the appellate judgment explicitly recorded her specific legal arguments, it failed to answer or adjudicate them.

Key arguments raised but allegedly ignored included:

· The petitioner was not a party to the mortgage deed and thus was not required to seek its cancellation.

• She held an independent title by succession, which could not be defeated by a decree passed in a suit where she was not a party.

· The mere quoting of a wrong provision (Order 21 Rule 58) should not disentitle a party to relief if the claim is maintainable under other provisions (Order 21 Rules 97, 101, and 103 CPC).

Court’s Analysis: The Duty to Adjudicate

The Division Bench conducted an exhaustive analysis of the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, referring to landmark Supreme Court precedents including Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Mar Poulose Athanasius.

The Court observed that while a review is not an "appeal in disguise," the failure to consider material arguments that go to the root of the matter falls within the ambit of review jurisdiction. The Bench relied heavily on Rajender Singh v. Lt. Governor, Andaman & Nicobar Islands, where the Supreme Court held that ignoring material on record or vital issues raised constitutes a miscarriage of justice.

The Court noted:

"The appellate judgment under review though recorded various submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant... did not address those submissions and did not record any finding thereon. Those submissions, in our view, cannot be said to be unrelated to the issue involved."

The Bench clarified that they were not examining the merits of the arguments (whether they were right or wrong), but rather the procedural error of the appellate court in remaining silent on them. The Court held that if an argument is relevant and germane to the issue, non-consideration is a patent error.

The High Court allowed the Review Petition (I.A. No. 1 of 2022). The judgment and decree dated 05.01.2022 in A.S. No. 59 of 2020 were set aside, and the appeal was restored to its original number for a fresh decision on merits.

Date of Decision: 28.11.2025