Madras High Court Dismisses Review Application for Lack of Error Apparent on Record. Review Applicant Attempted to Re-argue Merits, Which Is Impermissible Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

High Court: Madras High Court
  • 110
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The present review application was filed by A.Selva Sharma seeking to review the order dated 06.01.2022 passed by the Madras High Court in W.A.No.1656 of 2016. The applicant attempted to re-argue the merits of the case, which the court held is impermissible under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court noted that non-consideration of certain grounds on merits does not provide a valid cause for instituting review proceedings. Since the applicant failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference, the review application was dismissed. No costs were awarded, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Review - Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - Error Apparent - The review applicant sought to re-argue the merits of the case, which is not permissible under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Non-consideration of certain grounds on merits does not provide a cause for review. The applicant failed to establish any error apparent on the face of the record, and therefore the review application was dismissed. (Paras 1-2)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the review application discloses any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the order dated 06.01.2022 in W.A.No.1656 of 2016.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The review application is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

Law Points

  • Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record
  • re-argument of merits is impermissible
  • non-consideration of certain grounds does not constitute a ground for review
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2026 LawText (MAD) (03) 228

REV.APPL.No.3 of 2023

2026-03-11

S.M.Subramaniam, K.Surender

2026:MHC:1053

Ms.E.Oviya for Mrs.Kavitha Nithyanandan (for applicant), Mr.K.H.Ravikumar Govt. Advocate for R1

A.Selva Sharma

Director of Collegiate Education, Secretary Kandasami Kandars College, Dr.A.Chandirakala

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Review application against an order in a writ appeal

Remedy Sought

Review of the order dated 06.01.2022 in W.A.No.1656 of 2016

Filing Reason

The applicant sought to re-argue the merits and alleged non-consideration of certain grounds

Previous Decisions

Order dated 06.01.2022 in W.A.No.1656 of 2016

Issues

Whether the review application discloses any error apparent on the face of the record

Submissions/Arguments

The applicant attempted to re-argue the merits of the case, which is impermissible under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

Ratio Decidendi

Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record; re-argument of merits is not permissible under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

Judgment Excerpts

The present Review Application has been instituted to review the order of this Court dated 06.01.2022 passed in W.A.No.1656 of 2016. A perusal of the grounds raised by Review Applicant in the affidavit would show that an attempt has been made to re-argue the merits, which is impermissible under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.

Procedural History

The review application was filed against the order dated 06.01.2022 in W.A.No.1656 of 2016. The court dismissed the review application on 11.03.2026.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 47 Rule 1
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Madras High Court Dismisses Review Application for Lack of Error Apparent on Record. Review Applicant Attempted to Re-argue Merits, Which Is Impermissible Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds Termination of Peon for Sexual Harassment in Industrial Federation Case. Industrial Court's Remand for Back Wages Set Aside as Termination Was Valid and No Evidence of Willful Disobedience.