The Delhi High Court recently articulated that for exercising review jurisdiction the error in question must be one of inadvertence, as the power of review is intended for the correction of mistakes and not for the substitution of an already established view to conclude the case. Additionally, the mere potential for differing perspectives on the subject does not constitute grounds for a review.

Single-judge, Justice Chandra Dhari Singh said that the petitioners are not entitled to contest the findings of the impugned judgment solely based on their dissatisfaction with the reasoning presented within it.

“It is a well settled principle of law that the power of review is exercised in cases where there is an error apparent on the face of the record and in such an event the order or judgment can be corrected. A Court cannot act as an appellate Court for its own judgments, nor can it allow the petitions for review based only on the claim that one of the parties believes the judgment proven bane for them. If the matters that the Court has already adjudicated upon could be reopened and reheard, the same would be detrimental to the public interest,” the Court said.

The court made these observations in response to a review petition wherein the . petitioners sought to review and recall a previous order of the court, arguing that the court had not considered their submissions adequately. The review petitioners argued that certain facts had not been addressed, particularly the issue of non-espousal of an industrial dispute by a union, which they claimed was not raised in earlier stages of the proceedings and should not have been considered during adjudication.

However, the court emphasized that the scope of a review petition is narrowly defined and is not intended to act as a forum for appeal. It is specifically designed to address situations where there is an apparent error evident in the record that materially impacts the decision of the case. The court determined that the points raised by the petitioners did not introduce new evidence or identify a blatant oversight; instead, they expressed a general discontent with the court’s prior rationale. Consequently, the court ruled that the review petition failed to fulfil the criteria for review under Section 114 of CPC and accordingly dismissed it, upholding the original judgment.

“With regard to the facts of the instant review petition, it is observed that the same is an appeal in the garb of a review petition. The petitioners have put forth various contents and the same clearly seem to be grounds for appeal. Since no new evidence has been placed on record by the petitioners to support their arguments, the same cannot be dealt with under Section 114 of the CPC due to the limited scope of intervention,” the Court held.

The Court relied on Supreme Court judgement in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati wherein it was held that, 

“An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.”

“It is held that the entire facts of the present dispute have been taken into consideration in the impugned judgment and the law has also been appreciated rightly. The petitioners cannot be permitted to dispute the findings of the impugned judgment just because they are dissatisfied with the reasoning provided therein. The petitioners have failed to make out a case for review and therefore, the instant review petition is liable to be dismissed,” the judge said.

An error alleged by the review petitioner must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out, the Court said.