/2023 INSC 0122/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.1167­1170 OF 2023
S. Murali Sundaram         ..Appellant 
Versus
Jothibai Kannan & Ors.      ..Respondents
J U D G M E N T
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and  order  dated  29.06.2021  passed    by  the  High
Court  of judicature at  Madras  at Madurai Bench  passed in
Review Application (MD) No.21 of 2017 as well as the orders
passed in Writ Petition (MD) No.14847 of 2017, Writ Petition
(MD)   No.16256   of   2017   as   well   as   the   order   in   Contempt
1

Petition   (MD)   No.1109   of   2017   by   which   the   High   Court   in
exercise   of   review   jurisdiction   has   allowed   the   Review
Application No.21 of 2017 and has set aside the order dated
03.03.2017   passed   in   Writ   Petition   (MD)   No.8606   of   2010,
the   original   writ  petitioner  of  Writ  Petition  (MD)  No.8606  of
2010 has preferred the present appeals.
2. The issue involved in the present appeals as such is in
a very narrow compass.
2.1 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   order
passed   by   the   Tiruchirappalli   City   Municipal   Corporation
dated   17.07.2008   in   respect   of   the   pathway   comprised   in
New   TS   No.43   of   ward   42,   Block   AG   15,   Indian   Bank
Colony,   Simco   Meter   Road,   Tiruchirappalli   Taluk   and
District,   the   appellant   herein   preferred   the   Writ   Petition
(MD)   No.8606   of   2010   before   the   High   Court.     Before   the
High   Court   the   respondents   herein   –   review   petitioners
heavily relied upon the report of the Survey Department and
the measurements given in the survey report.  However, the
High   Court   discarded   the   survey   report   and   chosen   to   rely
2

upon   other   two   reports   and   consequently   allowed   the   writ
petitions by detailed judgment and order dated 03.03.2017.
2.2 That thereafter the contesting respondents herein – the
review   applicants  filed  the   present   Review   Application   (MD)
No.21 of 2017 in Writ Petition (MD) No.8606 of 2010 under
Order   47   Rule   1   of   Code   of   Civil   Procedure,   1908
(hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘CPC’).     One   Mr.   S.M.   Gajendran
filed the Writ Petition (MD) No.14847 of 2017 as well as Writ
Petition   (MD)   No.16256   of   2017   inter   alia   challenging   the
order   dated   03.07.2017   in   enquiry   in   Na.   Ka.
No.5293/A4/2017 as well as the order dated 09.06.2017 in
Na.   Ka.   No.10048/2016/F1   and   direct   the   respondents   to
accept   the   registered   gift   settlement   made   in   favour   of   the
Corporation   in   settling   seven   public   roads   by   registration
Corporation.     By   the   impugned   judgment   and   order   the
High   Court   has   allowed   the   Review   Petition   (MD)   No.21   of
2017   and   has   set   aside   the   judgment   and   order   dated
03.03.2017   passed   in   Writ   Petition   No.8606   of   2010.
Consequently,   the   High   Court   has   dismissed   the   Writ
Petition  Nos. 14847 of  2017 & 16256 of 2017 filed by  S.M.
Gajendran.     Consequently,   the   High   Court   has   also
3

dismissed   the   Contempt   Petition   No.1109   of   2017.     The
impugned common judgment and order passed by the High
Court   and   mainly   allowing   the   review   application   is   the
subject matter of present appeals.
2.3 Mr. V. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of   the   appellant   –   original   writ   petitioner   has   vehemently
submitted   that   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case
the High Court has erred in allowing the Review Application
and   has   materially   erred  in   quashing   and   setting   aside  the
judgment   and   order   dated   03.03.2017   passed   in   Writ
Petition No.8606 of 2010.
2.4 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing
on   behalf   of   the   appellant   that   while   allowing   the   review
application and quashing and setting aside the order passed
in the main writ petition, the High Court has exceeded in its
jurisdiction while deciding the review application.
2.5 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing
on   behalf   of   the   appellant   that   while   allowing   the   review
application   the   High   Court   has   exceeded   in   its   jurisdiction
4

while deciding the review application and has exercised the
jurisdiction not vested in it. 
2.6 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing
on behalf of the appellant that the High Court has exercised
the   review   jurisdiction   as   if   the   High   Court   was   exercising
the   appellate   jurisdiction   against   the   judgment   and   order
dated 03.03.2017 in Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010 which is
wholly impermissible.  Reliance is placed on the decisions of
this Court in the case of  Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan
Kansagra,   (2019)   20   SCC   753   as   well   as   in   Shanti
Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs.  Assam SEB, (2020) 2 SCC 677.
2.7  It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel   appearing
on behalf of the appellant that according to the High Court
and   so   observed   in   the   impugned   judgment   and   order,   the
judgment   and   order   dated   03.03.2017   passed   in   Writ
Petition   No.8606   of   2010   was   erroneous.     It   is   submitted
that however an erroneous order cannot be a subject matter
of review and an erroneous order however it may be cannot
be   set   aside   in   exercise   of   the   review   jurisdiction.     It   is
submitted in the present case all the grounds on which the
5

review   application   was   filed   and   the   grounds   on   which   the
review   application   is   allowed   were   as   such   dealt   with   and
considered   by   the   High   Court   while   deciding   the   writ
petition.     It   is   submitted   that   therefore   there   was   no   error
apparent   on   the   face   of   the   record   and/or   there   was   no
mistake   on   the   face   of   the   record   which   could   have   been
corrected in exercise of the review jurisdiction.
Making above submissions and relying upon the above
decisions, it is prayed to allow the present appeals.
3. Present   appeals   are   vehemently   opposed   by   Ms.
Haripriya   Padmanabhan,   learned   counsel   appearing   on
behalf   of   the   contesting   respondents   –   original   review
applicants.     It   is   vehemently   submitted   by   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   review   applicants   that   while
deciding   the   Writ   Petition   No.8606   of   2010   the   High   Court
erroneously discarded the survey report and relied upon the
private   reports.     It   is   submitted   that   as   such   a   fraud   was
committed   by   the   original   writ   petitioner   as   well   as   S.M.
Gajendran   as   they   relied   upon   the   forged
reports/documents.     It   is   submitted   that   therefore,   this
6

Court may not exercise the powers under Article 136 of the
Constitution   of   India.     It   is   submitted   that   the   High   Court
found   that   the   earlier   order   dated   03.03.2017   passed   in
Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010 was erroneous and therefore,
the High Court is justified in setting aside the judgment and
order   dated   03.03.2017   passed   in   Writ   Petition   No.8606   of
2010.
Making above submissions, it is prayed to dismiss the
present appeals.
4. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respective parties at length.
5. At   the   outset,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   by   the
impugned   judgment   and   order   the   High   Court   has   allowed
the review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and
has   set   aside   the   judgment   and   order   dated   03.03.2017
passed in Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010.  While allowing the
review   application   the   High   Court   has   observed   and   held
that   the   earlier   judgment   and   order   dated   03.03.2017   in
Writ   Petition   No.8606   of   2010   was   erroneous.     Therefore,
7

question  which is posed before this Court for  consideration
is   whether   in   the   facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   the
High   Court   is   justified   in   allowing   the   review   application
filed   under   Order   47   Rule   1   CPC   and   setting   aside   the
reasoned judgment and order passed in main writ petition?
5.1 While   considering  the   aforesaid   issue   two   decisions   of
this   Court   on   Order   47   Rule   1   read   with   Section   114   CPC
are   required   to   be   referred   to?     In   the   case   of   Perry
Kansagra   (supra)   this   Court   has   observed   that   while
exercising   the   review   jurisdiction   in   an   application   under
Order   47   Rule   1   read   with   Section   114   CPC,   the   Review
Court   does   not   sit   in   appeal   over   its   own   order.     It   is
observed that  a rehearing  of the  matter  is impermissible in
law.     It   is   further   observed   that   review   is   not   appeal   in
disguise.     It   is   observed   that   power   of   review   can   be
exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a
view.  Such powers can be exercised within the limits of the
statute   dealing   with   the   exercise   of   power.     It   is   further
observed   that   it   is   wholly   unjustified   and   exhibits   a
tendency   to   rewrite   a   judgment   by   which   the   controversy
8

has   been   finally   decided.     After   considering   catena   of
decisions   on   exercise   of   review   powers   and   principles
relating   to   exercise   of   review   jurisdiction   under   Order   47
Rule 1 CPC this Court had summed upon as under:
“ (i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal
and have to be strictly confined to the scope and
ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii)  Power of review may be exercised when some
mistake   or   error   apparent   on   the   fact   of   record
is   found.     But   error   on   the   face   of   record   must
be such an error which must strike one on mere
looking at the record and would not require any
long­drawn   process   of   reasoning   on   the   points
where there may conceivably by two opinions.
(iii)  Power of review may not be exercised on the
ground   that   the   decision   was   erroneous   on
merits.
(iv)     Power   of   review   can   also   be   exercised   for
any   sufficient   reason   which   is   wide   enough   to
include a misconception of fact or law by a court
or even an advocate.
(v)     An   application   for   review   may   be
necessitated   by   way   of   invoking   the   doctrine
actus curiae neminem gravabit.”
5.2 It   is   further   observed   in   the   said   decision   that   an   error
which   is   required   to   be   detected   by   a   process   of   reasoning   can
hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record.
9

5.3 In the case of  Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. (supra),  it is
observed and held that scope of review under Order 47 Rule
1 CPC read with Section 114 CPC is limited and under the
guise   of   review,   the   petitioner   cannot   be   permitted   to
reagitate   and   reargue   questions   which   have   already   been
addressed and decided.   It is further observed that an error
which   is   not   self­evident   and   has   to   be   detected   by   a
process   of   reasoning,   can   hardly   be   said   to   be   an   error
apparent   on   the   face   of   record   justifying   the   court   to
exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
5.3 Applying   the   law   laid   down   by   this   Court   in   the
aforesaid two decisions to the facts of the case on hand, we
are   of   the   opinion   that   in   the   present   case   while   allowing
the   review   application   and   setting   aside   the   judgment   and
order   dated   03.03.2017   passed   in   Writ   Petition   No.8606   of
2010   the   High   Court   has   exceeded   in   its   jurisdiction   and
has   exercised   the   jurisdiction   not   vested   in   it   while
exercising   the   review   jurisdiction   under   Order   47   Rule   1
read   with   Section   114   CPC.     From   the   reasoning   given   by
the High Court, it appears that according to the High Court
10

the  judgment and order  passed in  Writ Petition  No.8606 of
2010 was erroneous. While passing the impugned judgment
and order the High Court has observed and considered the
Survey   Report   dated   12.12.2007   which   was   already   dealt
with by the High Court while deciding the main writ petition
and   the   High   Court   discarded   and/or   not   considered   the
Survey   Report   dated   12.12.2007.     Once   the   Survey   Report
dated   12.12.2007   fell   for   consideration   before   the   High
Court   while   deciding   the   main   writ   petition   thereafter   the
same   could   not   have   been   considered   again   by   the   High
Court while deciding the review application.
5.4 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court it appears that  the High Court has decided the
review   application   as   if   the   High   Court   was   exercising   the
appellate jurisdiction against the judgment and order dated
03.03.2017   passed   in   Writ   Petition   (MD)   No.8606   of   2010
which  is  wholly  impermissible  while  considering  the   review
application   under   Order   47   Rule   1   read   with   Section   114
CPC.
11

5.5 From the impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court allowing the review application it is observed in
paragraph 33 as under:
“ 33. The above legal principals were born in mind
by   this   Court   while   considering   the   review
application. Brushing aside a survey report, which
was   available   on   record   and   which   brought   out
tampering   of   official   records,   ought   to   have   been
taken   note   of   by   the   Learned   Writ   Court,   while
considering   the   prayer   sought   for   in   the   Writ
Petition.   This   has   led   to   an   error,   which   is
manifest   on   the   face   of   the   order.   Furthermore,
the   Court   proceeded   on   the   basis   that   S.M.
Gajendran   had   executed   a   gift   deed   without
nothing   the   fact   that   the   gift   deed   was   a
document,   which   was   unilaterally   executed   by
him,   not   accepted   by   the   respondent   Corporation
and could not have been treated to be a valid gift.
These  facts have emerged  on  the fact of  the order
passed   in   the   Writ   Petition   without   any
requirement   for   a   long­drawn   reasoning.
Therefore,   we   are   fully   satisfied   that   we   are
justified   in   exercising   our   review   jurisdiction.   For
the   above   reasons,   we   are   of   the   clear   view   that
the   order   passed   in   the   Writ   petition   suffers   from
error   apparent   on   the   fact   of   the   records
warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.”
5.6 From the aforesaid it appears that the High Court has
considered   the   review   application   as   if   it   was   an   appeal
against the order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition
No.8606   of   2010.     As   observed   hereinabove   the   same   is
wholly   impermissible  while   deciding   the  review  application.
12

Even if the judgment sought to be reviewed is erroneous the
same cannot be a ground to review the same in exercise of
powers   under   Order   47   Rule   1   CPC.     An   erroneous   order
may   be   subjected   to   appeal   before   the   higher   forum   but
cannot be a subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC.
6. In  view  of  the  above  and  for  the  reasons  stated  above
and   applying   the   law   laid   down   by   this   Court   on   Order   47
Rule   1   read   with   Section   114   CPC,   we   are   of   the   opinion
that   in   the   present   case   while   allowing   the   review
application   the   High   Court   has   exceeded   in   its   jurisdiction
and   has   exercised   the   jurisdiction   not   vested   in   it   under
Order   47   Rule   1   read   with   Section   114   CPC   and   therefore
the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High
Court  allowing   the  review  application   and  setting   aside  the
order   dated   03.03.2007   passed   in   Writ   Petition   No.8606   of
2010   is   unsustainable   and   the   same   deserves   to   be
quashed and set aside.
6.1 As   the   Contempt   Petition   has   been   dismissed   by   the
High   Court   on   setting   aside   the   order   dated   03.03.2017
13

passed   in   Writ   Petition   No.8606   of   2010,   on   setting   aside
the   order   passed   in   Review   Petition   and   consequently
restoring the order dated 03.03.2017 passed in Writ Petition
No.8606 of 2010 the dismissal of the contempt petition is to
be   set   aside   and   the   matter   is   to   be   remitted   to   the   High
Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and
on its own merits.
6.2 Similarly   the   order   dismissing   the   Writ   Petition   (MD)
No.14847 of 2017 and Writ Petition (MD) No.16256 of 2017
is   also   to   be   quashed   and   set   aside   and   the   said   writ
petitions are to be remanded to the High Court to decide the
same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits.
7. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reason   stated   above,
civil appeal arising out of the impugned judgment and order
dated  29.06.2021  in  Review  Petition  (MD)  No.21 of  2017  is
allowed and the same order is hereby quashed and set aside
and   the   judgment   and   order   dated   03.03.2017   passed   in
Writ Petition (MD) No.8606 of 2010 is hereby restored.
14

Consequently the remaining appeals   arising out of the
dismissal   of   the   Writ   Petition   (MD)   No.14847   of   2017   and
Writ   Petition   (MD)   No.16256   of   2017   and   the   dismissal   of
the   Contempt   Petition   (MD)   No.1109   of   2017   are   also
allowed   and   the   said   orders   are   hereby   quashed   and   set
aside and the Writ Petition (MD) No.14847 of 2017 and Writ
Petition   (MD)   No.16256   of   2017   and   the   Contempt   Petition
No.1109   of   2017   are   remitted   back   to   the   High   Court   to
decide   the   same   afresh   in   accordance   with   law   and   on   its
own merits for which this Court has not expressed anything
in favour of the either parties.
Present   appeals   are   accordingly   allowed   to   the
aforesaid extent.  In the facts and circumstances of the case
there shall be no orders as to costs.
………………………………… J.
          (M. R. SHAH)
 
………………………………… J.
                                               (C.T. RAVIKUMAR)
New Delhi, 
February 24, 2023
15