The grounds on which a review is not maintainable in court.

The judgment discusses the principles of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. It refers to various cases, including Hari Sankar Pal vs. Anath Nath Mitter, Parison Devi vs. Sumitri Devi, Nalagarh Dehati Coop. Transport Society Ltd. vs. Beli Ram, and Gyan Chandra Dwivedi vs. 2nd ADJ, Kanpur.

The judgment reiterates that an erroneous decision cannot be corrected in the guise of review and that the expression “any other sufficient reason” in Order XLVII Rule 1 should be interpreted in light of other grounds specified in the provision. The scope of this ground is limited to a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule.

The judgment also cites Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors. and lists several grounds on which a review will not be maintainable, including repetition of old and overruled arguments, minor mistakes, and the mere possibility of two views on the subject.

“A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is
re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.”

Govt. of NCT of Delhi Through the Secretary,
Land and Building Department & Another …Applicants
M/s. K.L. Rathi Steels Limited and others …Respondents
decided by the Supreme Court on 17.03.23


Sanjiv Narang Adv. is an Advocate on Record in the Supreme Court of India. His qualifications include an LLB from University of Delhi and a Masters degree in Personnel Management from Panjab University,Chandigarh.In his more than 3 decades of experience, he has practiced law at the District, High Court and Supreme Court levels.He also has more than a decade of experience in the field of Management. He is the author of two books namely Laws for Women in India and Innovation, Why What and How.