Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sayla Realtors, filed a review petition before the Bombay High Court seeking review of an order dated September 25, 2025. By that order, the court had, by consent of parties, taken on board an application under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and appointed an arbitrator while dealing with a petition under Section 9 of the same Act. The Section 9 petition was converted into an application under Section 17, and an advocate of the court was appointed as arbitrator. The review petition was filed primarily on the ground that the Section 9 petition was not maintainable. The court examined the scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, noting that review is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. The court observed that the order was passed by consent of parties, and no error apparent on record was demonstrated. The review petition sought to re-argue the merits of the case, which is not permissible in review proceedings. Consequently, the court dismissed the review petition with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Record - Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - The petitioner sought review of an order appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration Act, arguing that the Section 9 petition was not maintainable. The court held that review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue the merits. The order was passed by consent of parties, and no error was apparent. (Paras 1-5) B) Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Section 11 Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - The court had appointed an arbitrator by consent of parties while dealing with a Section 9 petition. The review petition challenged the maintainability of the Section 9 petition. The court found no error apparent on record as the appointment was made with consent and the review petition sought to re-agitate issues already considered. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the review petition discloses any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated September 25, 2025 appointing an arbitrator under Section 11 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
Final Decision
The review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record
- Review petition cannot be used as an appeal in disguise
- Consent order cannot be reviewed without consent of parties
- Section 114 CPC and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC govern review
- No error apparent on record in appointing arbitrator under Section 11 of Arbitration Act
