The Supreme Court held that the High Court exceeded its limited review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC. A review cannot re-appreciate evidence or reverse findings as an appeal would. The order under review did not correct a patent error but substituted a view, which is impermissible in review proceedings.
Facts Of The Case:
The case originated from a partition suit (O.S. No. 192 of 2000) filed by Subramani against his father, Munusamy Naidu, concerning ancestral properties. An ex-parte preliminary decree was passed in 2003, dividing the property into two equal shares. The Appellant, Malleeswari, who is the daughter of Munusamy Naidu, was not initially impleaded in this suit. Subsequent to the decree, her father executed a sale deed in favor of the first respondent and a settlement deed in her favor. After her father’s death, Malleeswari was impleaded as his legal heir. She later filed an application (I.A. No. 1199 of 2018) seeking amendment of the preliminary decree, claiming an equal coparcenary right as a daughter under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Trial Court dismissed her application. While the High Court initially allowed her civil revision petition, it subsequently set aside that order in a review petition filed by the respondent. The core legal dispute before the Supreme Court was whether this review order by the High Court was passed within the limited scope of review jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Procedural History:
READ ALSO:Supreme Court Upholds Ruling: Power Generators Must Share Coal Costs Fairly Among All Buyers
Court Observation:
The Supreme Court observed that the High Court transgressed the narrow and limited scope of its review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 of the CPC. It held that a review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-hear the matter, re-appreciate evidence, or reverse factual findings. The Court found that the impugned review order did not correct an “error apparent on the face of the record” but instead undertook a fresh reasoning process and substituted its own view, which is impermissible. By doing so, the High Court had effectively sat in appeal over its own earlier order, thereby exceeding the well-defined limits of its review power.
Final Decision & Judgement:
Case Title: Malleeswari Versus K. Suguna and Another Citation: (@ SLP (C) No. 12787 of 2025) Date of Judgement: September 8, 2025 Judges/Justice Name: Justice S.V.N. Bhatti and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
Download The Judgement Here