Supreme Court Overturns High Court’s Review Order on Property Dispute: S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan (24 February 2023)

Date of the Judgment: 24 February 2023
Citation: 2023 INSC 161
Judges: M. R. Shah, J. and C.T. Ravikumar, J.

Can a High Court, in a review application, overturn its own previous judgment merely because it believes the earlier judgment was erroneous? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question regarding the limits of review jurisdiction. This case revolves around a property dispute where the High Court of Judicature at Madras, in a review, reversed its own order, leading to the Supreme Court intervention. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

This case originated from a dispute concerning a pathway in Tiruchirappalli. The appellant, S. Murali Sundaram, had challenged an order by the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation dated 17 July 2008, regarding a pathway. The dispute centered around the measurements and validity of a survey report. The High Court initially ruled in favor of the appellant on 3 March 2017, discarding the survey report and relying on other reports. Subsequently, the respondents filed a review application, which was allowed by the High Court, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

The respondents, in their review application, argued that the High Court had erred in discarding the survey report and relying on private reports. They alleged that the original writ petitioner had committed fraud by relying on forged documents. The High Court, in its review, agreed with the respondents, set aside its previous order, and dismissed the original writ petition.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The appellant, S. Murali Sundaram, initially filed Writ Petition (MD) No. 8606 of 2010 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras, challenging the order of the Tiruchirappalli City Municipal Corporation. The High Court, on 3 March 2017, ruled in favor of the appellant, discarding the survey report. The respondents then filed a review application, Review Application (MD) No. 21 of 2017, under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court allowed this review application on 29 June 2021, setting aside its previous order and dismissing the original writ petition. Additionally, the High Court dismissed Writ Petition (MD) Nos. 14847 of 2017 & 16256 of 2017 filed by S.M. Gajendran and Contempt Petition No. 1109 of 2017. This led to the present appeals before the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The Supreme Court primarily considered the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), which states:

“Any person considering himself aggrieved— (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.”

The Court also considered Section 114 of the CPC, which deals with the substantive power of review:

“Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved— (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.”

The Supreme Court emphasized that the power of review is not akin to an appellate power and is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, not to rehear the case.

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments (S. Murali Sundaram):

• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by allowing the review application and setting aside the original order.
• The High Court treated the review application as an appeal, which is impermissible under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
• The High Court, in its review, re-evaluated the survey report, which it had already considered and discarded in the original writ petition.
• An erroneous order cannot be a ground for review; it can only be challenged in appeal.
• There was no error apparent on the face of the record that warranted a review.

The appellant relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753 and Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. Assam SEB, (2020) 2 SCC 677 to support their arguments that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or substitute a view.

Respondents’ Arguments (Jothibai Kannan & Ors.):

• The High Court was correct in allowing the review as the original order was erroneous.
• The original writ petitioner committed fraud by relying on forged reports and documents.
• The High Court rightly considered the survey report, which was erroneously discarded in the original order.

The respondents argued that the High Court was justified in setting aside the judgment as the earlier order was erroneous and based on fraudulent documents.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

“Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the High Court is justified in allowing the review application filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and setting aside the reasoned judgment and order passed in the main writ petition?”

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s order in the review petition and restoring the original order passed in the writ petition. The Court held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by treating the review application as an appeal. The Supreme Court emphasized that the power of review is not to be used to re-evaluate evidence or substitute a view but is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record.

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• Perry Kansagra vs. Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753*: The Supreme Court followed this authority, reiterating that review proceedings are not by way of appeal and are confined to the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.
• Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. Vs. Assam SEB, (2020) 2 SCC 677*: The Supreme Court relied on this authority to emphasize that the scope of review is limited and cannot be used to re-agitate issues already decided.
• Order 47 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The Court interpreted this provision to mean that review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and not for re-evaluation of evidence.
• Section 114, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: The Court used this section to highlight that the power of review is not equivalent to appellate power.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used as a substitute for appeal. The Court emphasized that a review is not a re-hearing of the case. The Court was also concerned that the High Court had re-evaluated evidence and re-appreciated the survey report, which it had already considered in the original writ petition. This was seen as exceeding the scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC.

The Court’s reasoning was heavily based on the legal principles governing review jurisdiction, with a focus on the correct interpretation and application of Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. The factual aspects of the case were considered primarily to determine whether the High Court had overstepped its bounds of review.

The Court rejected the argument that the High Court could review its order simply because it believed the order to be erroneous. The Court emphasized that an erroneous order can only be corrected in an appeal, not in a review.

The Supreme Court quoted the following from the judgment:

“From the reasoning given by the High Court, it appears that according to the High Court the judgment and order passed in Writ Petition No.8606 of 2010 was erroneous.”

“Even if the judgment sought to be reviewed is erroneous the same cannot be a ground to review the same in exercise of powers under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.”

“An erroneous order may be subjected to appeal before the higher forum but cannot be a subject matter of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.”

Key Takeaways

• The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC is limited and cannot be used as a substitute for appeal.
• A review is not a re-hearing of the case, and the court cannot re-appreciate evidence or substitute a view.
• An erroneous order can only be corrected in an appeal and not in a review.
• The High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by re-evaluating evidence and treating the review as an appeal.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order in the review petition, restoring the original order passed in the writ petition. The Court also remitted the contempt petition and the other writ petitions back to the High Court to be decided afresh on their own merits.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is limited and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence or substitute a view. This case reinforces the established legal position that review is not an appeal in disguise and an erroneous order can only be corrected in an appeal and not in review.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in S. Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan & Ors. clarifies the scope and limitations of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court emphasized that review is not an appeal and cannot be used to re-evaluate evidence or substitute a view. This judgment serves as a reminder to lower courts to adhere strictly to the procedural limits of review and to avoid using it to correct errors that should be addressed through the appellate process.