#error apparent on face of record

MP High Court reaffirms that review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC cannot be used to reargue settled findings or introduce new claims without demonstrating due diligence. The ruling bars litigants from circumventing appellate finality by disguising fresh arguments as 'errors apparent on record'.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC can be invoked if a coordinate bench's order overlooks binding precedent, creating an 'error apparent on the face of the record'. The decision clarifies that such errors warrant recall of erroneous orders, ensuring judicial discipline and consistency in service law matters.

Allahabad HC rules that review petitions cannot be used to reargue merits after a final order, and denying ex-gratia compensation to similarly situated claimants amounts to arbitrary discrimination under Article 14. The judgment reinforces the limited scope of review jurisdiction while upholding constitutional equality in state welfare schemes.

The NCDRC has ruled that insurers cannot deny disability benefits merely because the policyholder received a maturity payout, affirming that these are separate contractual entitlements. This sets a critical precedent for policyholders with long-term disability claims, ensuring procedural fairness and preventing insurers from using settlement payments as a loophole to avoid liability.

Allahabad HC dismisses a review petition attempting to reargue a dismissed writ, holding that review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is not a substitute for appeal. The court reiterated the Supreme Court’s Parsion Devi ruling that errors requiring reasoning cannot be grounds for review, reinforcing finality of judgments and preventing abuse of process.

The Himachal Pradesh High Court clarified that review petitions under Section 114 CPC cannot be used to reargue promotion orders or reappreciate evidence, even if the outcome seems unfair. Only patent, obvious errors visible without detailed analysis qualify - reinforcing finality in administrative and judicial decisions affecting service benefits.

The Chhattisgarh High Court reiterated that a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is not a platform to reargue factual disputes or challenge evidentiary appreciation already settled in a final judgment. The ruling underscores that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record, not rehearing merits.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that misapplication of a statutory notification under MPLRC Section 165 qualifies as an 'error apparent on the face of record,' allowing review petitions under CPC Order 47. This clarifies the scope of review jurisdiction for lower courts handling property disputes involving tribal land alienation permissions.

CAT Kolkata reaffirms that review petitions under Order 47 CPC cannot be used to re-agitate the merits of a case or substitute appellate review. Only glaring errors evident on the face of the record justify review, reinforcing procedural finality in service law disputes for retired public servants and government bodies.

Punjab and Haryana High Court clarifies that review applications cannot reargue merits or introduce new contentions; only patent errors apparent on the face of the record are grounds for review.

Kerala High Court dismisses review petitions filed by State Government, holding that review cannot reargue merits already decided in writ appeals under CPC.

The Kerala High Court holds that review petitions under CPC Order XLVII Rule 1 cannot reargue merits already decided; clarifies limits of 'error apparent on face of record'.