Case Note & Summary
The present application was filed by the heirs of deceased Mahendrabhai Lallubhai Patel and others (original petitioners/defendants) under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the judgment and order dated 04.11.2025 passed by the High Court of Gujarat in Special Civil Application No. 7104 of 2016. The background of the case is a civil suit where the original plaintiffs (respondent herein) had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The defendants filed their written statement, and the plaintiffs filed an application to strike off the written statement on the ground that it was not verified properly. The trial court rejected that application. The plaintiffs then filed a writ petition before the High Court, which was dismissed by the judgment under review. In the review application, the applicants (original defendants) contended that the High Court had erred in dismissing the writ petition and that the trial court's order refusing to strike off the written statement was erroneous. They argued that the written statement contained false statements and was not properly verified, and that the trial court should have exercised its power under Order VI Rule 16 or Order VII Rule 11 CPC. The respondent (original plaintiff) opposed the review, submitting that the review application was an attempt to re-argue the case and that no error apparent on the face of the record had been shown. The Court, after hearing both sides, examined the scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 CPC and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. It held that review is not an appeal in disguise and that the power to review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record. The Court found that the applicants had merely re-agitated the same arguments that were considered and rejected in the main judgment. The Court noted that the judgment under review had correctly held that the trial court's order was a discretionary order and that the High Court in its writ jurisdiction should not interfere with such orders unless they are perverse or without jurisdiction. The Court concluded that there was no error apparent on the face of the record and that the review application was devoid of merit. Accordingly, the review application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - Error Apparent on Record - The applicants sought review of a judgment dismissing their writ petition against a civil court order refusing to strike off the defendant's written statement. The Court held that review is not an appeal in disguise and that the applicants failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. The mere fact that another view is possible is not a ground for review. (Paras 3-16) B) Civil Procedure - Review - Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - Scope - The Court reiterated that the power of review is limited and can be exercised only when there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason. The applicants' contentions regarding the merits of the original suit and the correctness of the impugned order were held to be beyond the scope of review. (Paras 7-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment and order dated 04.11.2025 in Special Civil Application No. 7104 of 2016 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The review application is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record
- not re-appreciation of evidence
- Section 114 CPC
- Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC
