Review Is Not An Appeal: Supreme Court Sets Aside Order Where High Court Reheard Case Under Guise Of Review Jurisdiction

"The order passed is quite beyond the contours of a review jurisdiction." Supreme Court, in a significant ruling, held that a court cannot exercise review jurisdiction to effectively rehear a matter or sit in appeal over its own judgment.

A bench of Justice J.B. Pardiwala and Justice K. Vinod Chandran observed that when a judge re-examines the merits of a case under the pretext of a review petition, it constitutes a gross overreach of the legal mandate provided under the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

The dispute arose after a batch of appeals filed by the respondents was dismissed by the High Court. Subsequently, the respondents filed review petitions, which were taken up by a different Single Judge who proceeded to allow them by re-evaluating the merits of the original case. Following this, the court issued a common judgment allowing the underlying appeals based on the findings reached during the review proceedings.

The primary question before the court was whether a Single Judge is permitted to rehear a matter on merits under the garb of a review petition after the initial appeal has already been dismissed. The court was also called upon to determine the validity of a final judgment that was rendered solely as a consequential outcome of an improperly entertained review petition.

Review Jurisdiction Is Restricted

The Supreme Court emphasized that the scope of review is strictly limited and does not extend to a fresh adjudication of the case. The bench noted that the impugned order had clearly transgressed these boundaries by reopening contentions that had already been settled. The court expressed its disapproval of the High Court's attempt to treat the review petition as an appellate proceeding.

"The learned Single Judge reheard the matter, evident from the finding that the judgment under review had not considered the contentions of the review petitioners which had substantial bearing on the result of the case."

The Perils Of Treating Reviews As Appeals

The bench highlighted that the procedural sanctity of judicial proceedings must be maintained. By allowing the review petition and immediately proceeding to pass a fresh judgment on the merits, the High Court bypassed the established legal hierarchy. The Supreme Court observed that such a process creates a parallel appellate mechanism that the law does not contemplate or authorize.

"The order passed is quite beyond the contours of a review jurisdiction."

Setting Aside The Impugned Orders

Finding the High Court’s approach fundamentally flawed, the Supreme Court set aside the common order passed in the review petitions. Because the subsequent judgment allowing the appeals was essentially a dependent order stemming from the erroneous review, the apex court set aside that judgment as well. The court concluded that the initial dismissal of the appeals must stand, barring any legal challenge by the aggrieved party.

Granting Liberty To Challenge

While quashing the irregular review proceedings, the Supreme Court ensured that the respondents were not left without a remedy. The bench granted liberty to the aggrieved parties to challenge the original appellate order within a period of 60 days, ensuring that the litigation process adheres to the correct legal channels rather than circumventing the law.

Date of Decision: 05 August 2026