Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-011437-011437 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 14036/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATTI |
| Precedent Value | Binding on all subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established limits on review jurisdiction |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (Review Jurisdiction) |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
The power of review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is distinct from appellate jurisdiction and strictly confined to:
A review court cannot rehear evidence or substitute its own view, nor correct errors by reappreciation of facts. The Madras High Court’s order of 19 October 2024 exceeded these statutory limits by revisiting factual findings and merit-based contentions, thereby transforming review into an appeal. Consequently, that order is set aside and the earlier CRP order of 23 September 2022 is restored. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
A partition suit (OS No. 192/2000) led to an ex parte preliminary decree (25 Feb 2003). The father of the appellant sold part of the property, and the appellant was later impleaded as his heir. She filed IA 1199/2018 to amend the decree under HSA 2005, which the trial court dismissed. The Madras High Court allowed her CRP (23 Sep 2022), but on review (19 Oct 2024) remitted the matter for fresh trial. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the review order, restored the CRP order, and directed expeditious disposal of pending applications. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts |
| Persuasive For | Madras High Court; other High Courts |
| Distinguishes | Review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC vs. appellate jurisdiction |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that review petitions under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC are not an appeal in disguise—courts cannot reappraise evidence or substitute their own conclusions.
- Clarifies that only three grounds justify review: discovery of new evidence, error apparent on face of record, or “any other sufficient reason” analogous to the first two.
- Confirms that remand orders based on fresh fact-finding exceed review jurisdiction and must be set aside.
- Directs trial courts to dispose of pending interlocutory applications expeditiously once finality is restored.
- Provides a ready checklist of binding precedents on the limits of civil review for practitioners drafting or opposing review petitions.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Distinction Between Review and Appeal
Review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is distinct from appellate power; cannot correct all errors or re-hear matters. -
Statutory Grounds for Review
(i) New and important evidence not available earlier, (ii) patent error on face of record, (iii) “any other sufficient reason” analogous to (i) and (ii). -
Requirement of Finality
Judicial decisions attain finality once pronounced; review is an exception to the rule against altering judgments. -
Application to Impugned Order
The Madras High Court’s review remanded the matter for a fresh factual inquiry, substituted its own findings, and thereby crossed into appellate territory. -
Conclusion and Relief
The impugned review order is set aside; the earlier CRP order (23 Sep 2022) is restored; civil appeal allowed; trial court directed to dispose pending applications within three months.
Arguments by the Parties
Appellant (Malleeswari Subramani)
- The Madras High Court exceeded its review jurisdiction by reappraising facts and substituting its own view on ancestral status and share entitlements.
- Entitled to amendment of the preliminary decree under both Tamil Nadu Amendment Act, 1989 (Section 29A) and HSA 2005.
- Review court cannot record fresh findings; the error went to the root of the matter.
Respondents (Suguna & Another)
- The impugned review order remained within statutory review limits; remand simply allowed defence on title purchased pendente lite.
- Appellant cannot expand an ex parte preliminary decree after long inaction; her remedy was appeal, not review.
- Settlement deeds and will are void due to lis pendens and prior injunction.
Factual Background
The dispute originated with OS No. 192/2000 for partition of ancestral property, resulting in a preliminary decree in February 2003. The first defendant sold parts of the property and later bequeathed his share to the appellant. The appellant’s application (IA 1199/2018) to amend the preliminary decree under HSA 2005 was dismissed by the trial court. The Madras High Court allowed her CRP (September 2022), but on review (October 2024) remanded the case for fresh trial. The Supreme Court restored the CRP order and directed the trial court to proceed.
Statutory Analysis
-
Section 114 CPC & Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
- Confer limited review powers distinct from appeal.
- Grounds: new evidence, apparent error, other sufficient reasons.
- Prohibit re-hearing and substitution of view.
-
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (Amendment 2005)
- Invoked by the appellant below but not finally addressed, as Supreme Court’s decision focused on review jurisdiction.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Affirmed limits on civil review jurisdiction.