Supreme Court Holds High Court Exceeded Review Jurisdiction in Remand, Restores Earlier Order and Directs Expeditious Trial Disposal

A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and S.V.N. Bhatti heard an appeal by Malleeswari against a High Court review order that had set aside an earlier judgment allowing her to reopen a preliminary decree in a partition suit and remitted the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration. The central question before the Court was whether the High Court, in exercising its review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, had exceeded the limited scope of review by reappreciating evidence and substituting its view for the earlier order.

The Supreme Court allowed the civil appeal, held that the impugned review order exceeded the bounds of review jurisdiction by undertaking a reappraisal of facts and effectively sitting in appeal, set aside the review order dated 19.10.2024, and restored the High Court order of 23.09.2022 which had allowed the revision petition. The Court emphasised the distinction between review and appellate powers and reiterated that review proceedings were “not to be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power of review is different from appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions: ... Review is not to be confused with appellate powers ... A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise." The Court further observed that the impugned order "has not adverted to an error apparent on the face of the record, but has taken up an error on reappreciation of the case and counter case of the parties."

Background The dispute arose from OS No. 192 of 2000 filed in the Court of the District Munsiff at Ponneri for partition of ancestral schedule properties. Subramani, son of Munasamy Naidu, sought an equal partition against his father. A preliminary decree was passed ex parte on 25.02.2003. The father later executed a registered sale deed dated 27.12.2004 in favour of K. Suguna (first respondent) for certain items and a settlement deed in favour of the present appellant. The appellant, who initially was not impleaded, was later brought on record as legal heir of her father after his death and sought amendment of the preliminary decree by IA No. 1199 of 2018 to claim coparcenary rights under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, contending that as a daughter she acquired equal coparcenary rights by birth and was entitled to a 1/3rd share which, together with a bequest, would amount to 2/3rd share.

The trial court dismissed the amendment application, holding the HSA 2005 inapplicable retroactively, finding the settlement deed invalid for being in breach of lis pendens and incriminating the appellant by estoppel as she had witnessed the sale. The Madras High Court allowed the appellant’s CRP on 23.09.2022, permitting her to revisit the preliminary decree. The purchaser filed a review application; by the impugned review order dated 19.10.2024 the High Court allowed review, remanded the matter to the trial court for full inquiry, and effectively permitted the respondent-purchaser to raise defenses as a pendente lite transferee. The Supreme Court found that the review bench went beyond correcting an apparent error and reappraised evidence, thereby transgressing review limits. The Court noted precedent on review scope and reiterated the accepted grounds for review: discovery of new evidence, mistake apparent on face of record, or "any other sufficient reason" analogous to these grounds. The final result was that the impugned review order was set aside, the CRP order of 23.09.2022 was restored, and the trial court was directed to expeditiously dispose of all pending applications preferably within three months. No order as to costs was made.

Case No.: Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No. 12787 of 2025 (2025 INSC 1080) Case Title: Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. V. Prabhakar, Senior Advocate For the Respondent(s): Ms. Shobha Ramamoorthy; Dr. Sivabalamurugan