#Order 47 CPC

Meghalaya High Court holds that a revision petition under Section 115 CPC can challenge an order rejecting a review application, even if the underlying decree remains unchallenged. This ruling clarifies the limited but crucial scope of revisional jurisdiction, offering tenants and litigants an additional remedy in eviction and property disputes without reopening the final decree.

The Calcutta High Court dismissed a review petition attempting to overturn a judgment based on a later Supreme Court ruling, holding that Order 47 Rule 1 CPC strictly limits review grounds to errors apparent on the face of the record. The ruling reinforces that litigants cannot use subsequent judgments to reopen concluded cases, preserving finality in civil proceedings.

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.