Review Jurisdiction

Source: Supreme Court 

Why in News? 

The bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another (2025) set aside a High Court review order that exceeded the limited scope of review jurisdiction, while addressing a daughter's claim for equal coparcenary rights in ancestral property under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.

What was the Background of Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another (2025) Case? 

• The case originated from OS No. 192 of 2000 filed by Subramani for partition of ancestral properties into equal shares between him and his father Munusamy Naidu. 
• The original suit was filed without impleading Malleeswari (daughter of Munusamy Naidu), treating it as a partition between male coparceners only. 
• A preliminary decree was passed ex-parte on 25.02.2003, determining shares between father and son without considering the daughter's rights. 
• Post-decree, Munusamy Naidu executed a sale deed on 27.12.2004 in favor of K. Suguna (first respondent) for part of the properties and a settlement deed in favor of Malleeswari for remaining properties. 
• After Munusamy Naidu's death in 2011, Malleeswari was impleaded as his legal heir and successor. 
• In 2018, Malleeswari filed I.A. No. 1199 seeking amendment of the preliminary decree to claim her 1/3rd share as a coparcener under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. 
• She argued that as a daughter of a living coparcener when the 2005 amendment came into force, she was entitled to equal coparcenary rights by birth. 
• Additionally, she claimed her father's 1/3rd share through his Will dated 23.04.2008, bringing her total claim to 2/3rd share. 
• The Trial Court dismissed her application in 2019, but the High Court allowed her Civil Revision Petition in 2022. 
• Subsequently, the High Court allowed a review application in 2024, setting aside its earlier order and remanding the matter to the Trial Court. 

What were the Court's Observations? 

On Review Jurisdiction Limitations:  

• The Court emphasized that review jurisdiction is fundamentally different from appellate power and must be strictly confined to the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC).  
• Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and cannot be allowed to become "an appeal in disguise." 
• The power of review can be exercised for correction of mistakes, but not to substitute a view or reverse findings of fact. 

On Grounds for Review:  

The Court outlined three specific grounds for review: 

• Discovery of new and important matter or evidence not previously available despite due diligence. 
• Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record (patent error, not mere wrong decision). 
• Any other sufficient reason analogous to the above categories. 

On the Impugned Order:  

The Supreme Court found that the High Court's review order exceeded its jurisdiction by: 

• Not identifying any error apparent on the face of the record. 
• Undertaking reappreciation of the case instead of correcting apparent errors. 
• Recording fresh findings extending far beyond the scope of review jurisdiction. 
• Essentially sitting in appeal against its own earlier order. 

On Daughter's Coparcenary Rights:  

While not definitively ruling on the merits, the Court acknowledged the appellant's entitlement to claim coparcenary rights under both Section 29A of the Hindu Succession Act (Tamil Nadu Amendment Act), 1989 and the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. 

What is Review Jurisdiction? 

Overview: 

• Review jurisdiction allows courts to re-examine their own decisions within strictly defined limits.  
• The power stems from Section 114 CPC and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, recognizing human fallibility while maintaining finality of judicial decisions. 

Three Grounds for Review: 

1. Discovery of New and Important Matter/Evidence:

Courts apply a "triple test" requiring: 

• New matter/evidence must be capable of changing the judgment. 
• Such matter was not within the applicant's knowledge initially. 
• It could not be produced despite due diligence. 

The evidence must be relevant and of such character that it might have altered the original judgment. Mere discovery alone is insufficient. 

2. Mistake or Error Apparent on Face of Record:

This must be a "patent error," not merely a wrong decision. The error must: 

• Be self-evident and manifest on the record. 
• Not require lengthy reasoning or elaborate argument to establish. 
• "Stare in the face" without needing detailed examination. 

Courts have emphasized that errors requiring reappreciation of evidence or complex reasoning do not qualify. The error must be something more than a mere mistake and be discoverable at first glance. 

3. Any Other Sufficient Reason:

• Interpreted using the doctrine of ejusdem generis, this ground must be analogous to the first two specified grounds.  
• The Privy Council established that it means "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule." 

Key Limitations and Principles: 

What Review Cannot Do: 

• Function as an appeal in disguise. 
• Allow substitution of views or correction of erroneous decisions on merits. 
• Permit rehearing or reappreciation of evidence. 
• Allow repetition of old, overruled arguments. 
• Correct failures to argue points during original hearing. 
• Address documents that were part of record but not considered. 

Fundamental Restrictions: 

• Review jurisdiction is narrow and reluctantly exercised. 
• Courts cannot transgress limits and enter appellate domain. 
• Power must be exercised with "extreme care, caution and circumspection". 
• Not every mistake justifies review - only those apparent on the face of record. 
• No definitive test exists; determination is made judicially on case facts. 

Distinguished from Appellate Powers: 

• Unlike appellate courts that can correct all manner of errors, review courts have limited jurisdiction.
• Appellate powers enable comprehensive examination of law and fact, while review only corrects apparent errors within statutory confines.