The Andhra Pradesh High Court has reaffirmed the limited scope of review jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, holding that a review petition cannot be sustained merely on grounds of disagreement with the original order. The Court modified its earlier order to remove findings on merits that could prejudice the petitioner's civil remedies, while upholding the dismissal of the writ petition as non-maintainable against an appellate judgment.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The petitioner, G. Srinivasulu Reddy, filed a writ petition (W.P.No.17609 of 2024) challenging the judgment dated 24.02.2023 passed in A.S.No.16 of 2017 by the III Additional District Judge, Nellore. The petitioner sought to set aside the appellate judgment and obtain a corrected order copy of I.A.No.41/2021 to enable him to file a further appeal before the High Court. He also prayed for suspension of the impugned judgment and remand of the matter to the trial court.
Key Facts
- The petitioner filed O.S.No.111 of 1997 before the I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nellore, which was subsequently appealed in A.S.No.16 of 2017 before the III Additional District Judge, Nellore.
- During the pendency of A.S.No.16 of 2017, the petitioner filed:
- I.A.No.367 of 2020 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the memo of appeal.
- I.A.No.390 of 2020 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the plaint.
- I.A.No.414 of 2021 (mentioned as I.A.No.414 of 2022 in the impugned order), the details of which are central to the petitioner's grievance.
- The III Additional District Judge disposed of A.S.No.16 of 2017 by judgment dated 24.02.2023.
- The petitioner alleges that he was not furnished with a corrected copy of the order in I.A.No.414 of 2021 in time to file a revision petition, and the main appeal was disposed of meanwhile.
Procedural History
- 24.02.2023: Judgment passed in A.S.No.16 of 2017 by III Additional District Judge, Nellore.
- 2023: Petitioner files W.P.(SR) No.20588 of 2023 and W.P.(SR) No.4371 of 2024 (details not specified in judgment).
- 01.07.2024: Division Bench of the High Court passes common order in W.P.No.17609 of 2024 and W.P.No.17610 of 2024:
- W.P.No.17609 of 2024 dismissed as not maintainable, with findings on merits of I.A.No.367 of 2020 and I.A.No.390 of 2020.
- W.P.No.17610 of 2024 disposed of as no orders necessary, permitting the petitioner to argue as party-in-person.
- 2025: Petitioner files I.A.No.1 of 2025 seeking review of the order dated 01.07.2024 in W.P.No.17609 of 2024.
Relief Sought
The petitioner sought the following reliefs in the review petition:
- Setting aside the judgment dated 24.02.2023 in A.S.No.16 of 2017.
- Direction to furnish a true corrected copy of the order in I.A.No.41/2021 to enable filing of a revision petition.
- Suspension of the impugned judgment and remand of the matter to the trial court.
- Alternatively, permission to file a fresh suit with amended pleadings.
The Legal Issue
The primary legal question before the Court was whether the review petition under Article 226 of the Constitution could be sustained in the absence of an error apparent on the face of the record, particularly when the original order contained findings on merits that could prejudice the petitioner's civil remedies.
Arguments Presented
For the Petitioner
The petitioner, appearing as party-in-person
