"Review Cannot Become an Appeal in Disguise" – Orissa High Court Dismisses Review Petition Alleging Fabricated Records in Suo Motu PIL Registration

"Even if an alternative view is possible, re-evaluation of settled facts and legal conclusions is not within the scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC." – In a significant decision rendered on 17th September 2025, the Orissa High Court dismissed Review Petition No.160 of 2025 filed by the Registrar General of the High Court of Orissa and others, seeking review of the Court’s earlier judgment dated 02.05.2025 in W.P.(C) No.28874 of 2023. The judgment was delivered by a Division Bench of Justice S.K. Sahoo and Justice Sibo Sankar Mishra, affirming that the review jurisdiction cannot be used to reopen decided issues or raise new grounds based on fabricated records or dissenting letters that were neither pleaded nor relied upon in the original writ proceedings.

“Fabricated Records Argument First Raised in Review Petition Cannot Be Entertained” – Court Finds No Material Suppression in Original Writ Proceedings

The core of the Review Petition rested on allegations that the High Court had inadvertently relied upon fabricated and parallel documents, allegedly placed in a sealed cover during the hearing of the writ petition, which pertained to a disciplinary action initiated against the then Registrar General (the writ petitioner in the original case). Petitioners contended that the suo motu writ petition (W.P.(C) No.7943 of 2021) was registered without the Hon’ble Chief Justice’s approval, and based on an unsigned and unauthenticated order dated 24.02.2021, over which a dissent by the second judge was allegedly recorded belatedly.

However, the Court categorically rejected these assertions, holding:

“The contention raised by the Review Petitioners regarding the fabricated and parallel record... is being urged for the first time in the Review Petition... Nowhere in the counter affidavits, inquiry proceedings, or pleadings before the Writ Court has such a ground been raised.”

The Bench emphasized that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to introduce new pleas, especially when due opportunity was given to all parties to present the original sealed records, and the Court had already perused the same in detail during the original proceedings.

“Order Dated 24.02.2021 Was Judicial in Nature; Dissent Was Recorded Only Later” – No Error Found in Court’s Appreciation of Judicial Proceedings

Review Petitioners contended that the order dated 24.02.2021, based on which the suo motu writ was registered, was administrative, and that there existed dissent by the puisne judge, which the Court failed to acknowledge. They relied heavily on a letter dated 10.05.2021 written by the dissenting judge to the then Chief Justice, asserting that the signature on the dissenting opinion was taken later, under “coaxing” by the presiding judge.

The Court, however, analyzed the timeline and content of the dissenting judge’s letter in detail and found no basis to disturb its original conclusion:

“The learned Judge has admitted in the letter that he has only recorded his dissent on 07.04.2021... When the writ petitioner approved the registration on 26.02.2021, there was no dissent on record.”

Further, the Court held that once an order is dictated in open court, it acquires a judicial character unless contemporaneous dissent is recorded.

“If a judgment/order is dictated in open Court by one of the Judges in a Division Bench and if the other Judge does not agree with the view expressed, he would have to pronounce his view/dissent immediately in the Court itself…”

Thus, the order dated 24.02.2021 could not retrospectively be declared administrative simply because dissent was subsequently recorded.

“No Rule Exists Requiring Chief Justice’s Prior Approval for Suo Motu Writ Registration” – High Court Rules Do Not Mandate It

A significant ground in the Review Petition was the alleged violation of protocol, claiming that prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Justice was mandatory before registering any suo motu writ petition.

In response, the Court referred to the affidavit dated 04.04.2025 filed by the Special Officer (Administration), High Court of Orissa, and held:

“No rule/law/procedure/standing order requiring prior permission of the Hon’ble Chief Justice for registration of suo motu case basing on an order passed by the Hon’ble Court is available.”

While it acknowledged that judicial propriety and internal practice may encourage deference to the Chief Justice as “Master of the Roster”, the absence of a codified requirement negates any presumption of procedural impropriety.

“Three-Judge Bench’s View Not Binding in Disciplinary Context” – Review Petitioners Cannot Rely on Observations Made in a Different Jurisdiction

The Review Petition also relied on the order dated 09.09.2021 passed by a Three-Judge Bench in the disposed Suo Motu W.P.(C) No.7943 of 2021, which stated that all orders dated 24.02.2021 remained unsigned, and thus the writ was wrongly registered.

However, the Court clarified the limited scope of that judgment:

“The Three-Judge Bench was concerned only with the issue whether the Suo Motu Writ Petition was correctly registered, whereas the present writ petition relates to the disciplinary proceeding... No binding ratio was laid down therein to govern the present case.”

Importantly, the Court noted that the Bench included the then Chief Justice (Disciplinary Authority), the Inquiry Officer, and the Dissenting Judge, raising serious questions about composition and impartiality, although the Division Bench refrained from commenting further on that issue.

“Review Petition Is a Collateral Attack on Settled Findings” – Scope of Review Jurisdiction Reiterated

In a detailed and comprehensive ruling, the Court reiterated the well-settled principles of review, citing precedents including Haridas Das v. Usha Rani Banik, (2006) 4 SCC 78, Parry Kansagra v. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753, and the recent Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, 2024 SCC OnLine SC:

“A review is not an appeal in disguise... The power of review may be exercised only for correcting a patent error or considering new material which could not have been produced earlier despite due diligence...”

On applying these principles, the Court observed:

“Even if the submissions of learned Senior Counsel Mrs. Pami Rath are accepted in toto, the most that could be contended is the possibility of an alternative view. However, the existence of an alternative view by itself does not fall within the limited grounds of review as recognised by law.”

Review Petition Dismissed with Strong Reaffirmation of Judicial Discipline

The High Court ultimately held that none of the grounds urged in the Review Petition met the threshold under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, and the petitioners failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record, new and previously undiscoverable evidence, or sufficient reason to warrant re-examination of the final judgment.

“The Review Petition deserves no merit, hence the prayer made in the petition is not acceded to. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.”

Date of Decision: 17th September 2025