Review Jurisdiction Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC Cannot Be Exercised To Substitute A View Or Rehear An Appeal In Disguise: Orissa High Court

"The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court... It is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise." Orissa High Court, in a judgment dated September 18, 2026, has reaffirmed the strict limitations governing the scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

A single bench of Justice Sashikanta Mishra held that a review petition cannot be used as an instrument to re-argue a matter or seek the substitution of a judicial view, as the power is strictly confined to correcting errors that are apparent on the face of the record.

The matter arose from a review petition seeking to set aside a judgment delivered on March 24, 2023, in a writ petition concerning land consolidation disputes under the Orissa Consolidation of Holdings and Prevention of Fragmentation of Land Act (OCH & PFL Act). The petitioner contended that the court had failed to consider specific legal grounds raised during the writ proceedings and that the court erred in its interpretation of the jurisdiction of consolidation authorities.

Scope of Review Jurisdiction

The court framed the primary legal issue as whether the grounds urged by the petitioner constituted an "error apparent on the face of the record" sufficient to invoke review jurisdiction, or whether the petitioner was merely attempting to re-litigate the merits of the original judgment. The court also examined the limits of certiorari jurisdiction when faced with concurrent findings of fact by subordinate consolidation authorities.

Court Rejects Attempt to Re-agitate Merits

In its analysis, the bench observed that all three authorities under the OCH & PFL Act had concurrently rejected the petitioner’s claim. The court noted that concurrent findings of fact are not to be interfered with routinely under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Addressing the petitioner's argument that certain grounds were not addressed in the original judgment, the court clarified that even if a ground is not explicitly elaborated upon in the final order, it does not automatically constitute a ground for review.

No Scope for Rehearing under Order 47 Rule 1

The court emphasized that if a party fails to urge specific grounds during the initial hearing of a writ petition, they are deemed to have abandoned those arguments. The bench underscored that the review process is not a mechanism for a "second trip over ineffectually covered ground." Relying on the Supreme Court’s decision in Malleeswari v. K. Sugunal, the court reiterated that review proceedings are not an appeal in disguise and must be strictly confined to the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

A Wrong Decision is Not a Reviewable Error

The court further distinguished between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. It held that the correction of a mistake does not permit a court to substitute its previous view with a new one. The bench observed that judicial finality must be maintained, and absent a "glaring omission or patent mistake," the court must be reluctant to exercise its review power.

Court Refuses to Substitute View

"After hearing the parties at length, this Court finds that what the review petitioner essentially wants is a substitution of the view taken by this Court in the judgment. This can hardly be a ground for review as allowing it would amount to entertaining an appeal in the guise of review."

Concluding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any palpable error, the High Court dismissed the review application, noting that if the petitioner felt the original judgment was legally or factually flawed, the appropriate remedy was to challenge it before a higher appellate forum rather than seeking a review before the same bench.

Date of Decision: 18 September 2026