Summary
In a dispute over a pathway in Indian Bank Colony, Tiruchirappalli, the Madras High Court allowed a writ petition in March 2017 by a reasoned order that discarded the Survey Department's report; on review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it held that order erroneous for brushing aside the survey report, set it aside, and consequently dismissed two connected writ petitions and a contempt petition. The Supreme Court allowed the writ petitioner's appeals: following Perry Kansagra and Shanti Conductors, review is not an appeal in disguise, an error that must be detected by a process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record, and a survey report already considered in the main judgment could not be reconsidered in review; the High Court had exercised appellate jurisdiction under the guise of review.
Issues
- Whether a High Court in review under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC can set aside its reasoned judgment in a writ petition on the ground that it erroneously discarded a survey report which had already been considered while deciding the writ petition.
Provisions considered
- Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Review is confined to a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record which strikes one on mere looking without long-drawn reasoning; it cannot be exercised because the decision is erroneous on merits, and the High Court exceeded that jurisdiction by rehearing the writ petition. (¶¶ 5, 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, 5.4, 5.6, 6)
Held
- The survey report dated 12.12.2007 fell for consideration in the main writ petition and was discarded; once considered, it could not be considered again in review, and the High Court's own reasoning shows it treated the review as an appeal and found the earlier order erroneous, which is not a ground for review. An erroneous order may be challenged in appeal before a higher forum but cannot be reviewed under Order 47 Rule 1. (¶¶ 5.3, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6)
- Since the connected writ petitions and the contempt petition were dismissed only as a consequence of setting aside the main order, those dismissals must also be set aside and the matters remitted to the High Court for fresh decision on merits, without any expression of opinion. (¶¶ 6.1, 6.2, 7)
Result
Appeals allowed without costs; Madras High Court order dated 29.06.2021 in Review Application (MD) No. 21 of 2017 quashed and the judgment dated 03.03.2017 in Writ Petition (MD) No. 8606 of 2010 restored; orders dismissing Writ Petitions (MD) Nos. 14847 and 16256 of 2017 and Contempt Petition (MD) No. 1109 of 2017 set aside and those matters remitted to the High Court for fresh decision on merits.