CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — ORDER 47 RULE 1, RULE 4 — REVIEW — SCOPE, GROUNDS AND REJECTION AT THRESHOLD — Review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is maintainable only on narrow grounds: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which could not be produced earlier by the exercise of due diligence; (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and (iii) any other sufficient reason (to be read ejusdem generis). An error which is not self-evident and which requires a process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record and does not justify review. (Paras 15–17) — Under Rule 4 of Order 47 CPC the Court may—if it appears there are insufficient grounds for review—reject the application before assigning a number. A rejection at the threshold is permissible where the claimed grounds do not fall within the limited scope of review jurisdiction. (Paras 11–13) — Repetition of old arguments, minor or inconsequential mistakes, mere possibility of two views, or appreciation of evidence which is open to appellate correction, do not constitute grounds for review. Review is not an appeal in disguise. (Paras 17–18)

A. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — ORDER 47 RULE 1, RULE 4 — REVIEW — SCOPE, GROUNDS AND REJECTION AT THRESHOLD

— Review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is maintainable only on narrow grounds: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence which could not be produced earlier by the exercise of due diligence; (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and (iii) any other sufficient reason (to be read ejusdem generis). An error which is not self-evident and which requires a process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of the record and does not justify review. (Paras 15–17)

— Under Rule 4 of Order 47 CPC the Court may—if it appears there are insufficient grounds for review—reject the application before assigning a number. A rejection at the threshold is permissible where the claimed grounds do not fall within the limited scope of review jurisdiction. (Paras 11–13)

— Repetition of old arguments, minor or inconsequential mistakes, mere possibility of two views, or appreciation of evidence which is open to appellate correction, do not constitute grounds for review. Review is not an appeal in disguise. (Paras 17–18)

B. CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 — ORDER 41 RULE 5 — APPLICATION FOR STAY OF JUDGMENT/DECREE PENDING REVIEW — APPROPRIATE REMEDY

— An application under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC for stay of execution, when framed as ancillary to a review petition, must be considered in the context of whether the review petition itself discloses prima facie maintainable grounds. Where the review application is defective or untenable on the face of the record, an interlocutory stay application filed under Order 41 Rule 5 may be rejected at the threshold. (Paras 2–3, 18)

— Filing of an application under Order 41 Rule 5 read with Order 47 Rule 1 cannot convert review into an appeal; mechanical recourse to such procedures, with a view to delay execution, may justify rejection. (Paras 18–19)

C. ARTICLE 227 — CIVIL REVISION AGAINST REJECTION OF REVIEW — SCOPE

— Where a trial Judge rejects a review application at the threshold under Rule 4 of Order 47 CPC after applying settled principles and assigning reasons that the grounds do not fall within Order 47 Rule 1, supervisory interference under Article 227 is not warranted. If the review application was rejected prior to numbering and no substantive order on merits was passed, a revision is permissible only in exceptional circumstances; however, where the threshold rejection is in accordance with law and reasons are assigned, the High Court will not interfere. (Paras 6–14)

— Judicial precedents (including Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, BCCI v. Netaji Cricket Club, DSR Steel Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Rajasthan and other authorities) underscore that review is a limited remedy and that rejection at the threshold is sustainable if the grounds pleaded are not of the character contemplated by Order 47 Rule 1. (Paras 5–9, 16–18)

D. APPLICATION OF PRINCIPLES TO FACTS — GROUNDS RAISED IN REVIEW / MERITS ALLEGATIONS

— The review grounds advanced mirror written arguments on the main suit (contentions as to burden of proof, absence of privity, non-marking of documents, non-framing of issues, alleged misappreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and disputed factual findings regarding amenities, licences, and damages). Such grounds, being essentially requests for re-appreciation of evidence or re-hearing of issues, do not disclose an error apparent on the face of the record or newly discovered evidence. (Paras 5, 11, 15–18)

— The trial Judge assigned reasons that the review grounds do not fall within the scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and consequently rejected the stay application (CFR No.5826 of 2024) and declined to number the review petition. The Court found that the application appears to have been filed mechanically and may have the object of delaying execution proceedings. (Paras 2–3, 18)

E. CONCLUSION — DISPOSAL

— On considered application of the settled law to the facts and grounds presented, there is no merit in the Civil Revision Petition. The threshold rejection of the review application and the order refusing interim stay were sustainable. The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed without costs. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand closed. (Paras 19–20)

Result: Civil Revision Petition dismissed. No order as to costs. Pending interlocutory applications closed.