#Error Apparent on Record

Kerala High Court clarifies that review petitions under the Civil Procedure Code must demonstrate an 'error apparent on the face of the record', not just a change in legal interpretation or subsequent judgments. The ruling reinforces that review jurisdiction is limited to correcting manifest errors, not re-litigating settled issues, impacting service law disputes involving retirement benefits and administrative orders.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court held that while review petitions cannot substitute appeals, they may adjust interest rates on pension arrears under equitable principles when the delay in payment arises from circumstances beyond the government body's control, such as pending criminal investigations. This sets a precedent for balancing fiscal responsibility with fair compensation to retirees facing unjustified delays due to external legal processes.

Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirms that review petitions under Article 226 require a clear error apparent on the record, and writ jurisdiction cannot be used to circumvent statutory remedies like appeals under Section 100 CPC. The ruling underscores the limited scope of review petitions and the necessity of exhausting alternative remedies before invoking constitutional jurisdiction.

Chhattisgarh High Court reiterates that review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is confined to errors apparent on the record and cannot be used to re-examine issues already adjudicated. The ruling underscores the limited scope of review petitions in property disputes, reinforcing finality of judgments.