Case Note & Summary
The review application was filed by two police officers, M.Venkatesan and Elangovan, seeking review of an order dated 21.11.2025 passed by the Madras High Court in W.P.No.11248 of 2021. The petitioners were originally respondents in a writ petition before the Tamil Nadu State Human Rights Commission. The review petitioners contended that their counsel had argued the scope of Section 16 of the Human Rights Act before the Division Bench during the final hearing of the writ appeal, but the order did not contain any finding on that point. The court examined whether non-consideration of arguments constitutes a ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court held that non-consideration of certain grounds or arguments per se does not constitute a ground to review the order. What is required is an error apparent on the face of the record. The court emphasized that grounds for appeal are not grounds for review, and courts are not expected to record all arguments made by counsel. The court relied on the Supreme Court judgment in Malleeswari v. K.Suguna and another [2025 INSC 1080], which elaborates the principles of review jurisdiction. The court dismissed the review application, finding no error apparent in the original order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent - Order 47 Rule 1, Section 114 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Non-consideration of arguments per se does not constitute a ground for review; what is required is an error apparent on the face of the record. The court held that grounds for appeal cannot be grounds for review, and all arguments need not be recorded. (Paras 3-4) B) Human Rights - Review of Order - Section 16 Human Rights Act - The review petitioners argued that the scope of Section 16 was not considered in the original order, but the court found no error apparent and dismissed the review. (Para 2)
Issue of Consideration
Whether non-consideration of arguments regarding Section 16 of the Human Rights Act constitutes a ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
Final Decision
Review application dismissed. No error apparent on record.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction is limited to error apparent on record
- not re-argument of grounds
- Non-consideration of arguments per se does not constitute ground for review
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC requires error apparent
