Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Apparent Error Definition - An error must be self-evident, obvious, and manifest on the face of the record, requiring no extensive process of reasoning to detect. Errors that need detailed analysis or interpretation are not considered apparent 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 466,
Kewal Krishan VS Sham Lal - Current Civil Cases
, 2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 10164, 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 781.Criteria for Review - Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, a judgment is reviewable if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The error must be clear, patent, and not require investigation or deep reasoning. Similar principles apply in criminal cases under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 466,
Kewal Krishan VS Sham Lal - Current Civil Cases
, 2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 10164, 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 781.Nature of Error - The error should be of inadvertence or patent ignorance of law, not a mere wrong decision or a conclusion based on reasoning. Errors which are not self-evident and require a process of reasoning do not qualify for review 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 466,
Kewal Krishan VS Sham Lal - Current Civil Cases
, 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 963, 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1438.Legal Precedents - The Court reaffirmed that for review, the error must be manifest on the record, not something to be fished out or discovered through detailed debate. The decision in Syed Ahmad Ishaque (1955) emphasized that errors which are obvious and based on clear ignorance or disregard of law are errors apparent 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4251, 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 466.
Recent Judgement Insights - The Court clarified that errors requiring reasoning or lengthy debate are not apparent errors warranting review. The scope of review is limited to errors that are obvious and self-evident on the face of the record. The Court rejected review petitions where no such clear error was identified
Kewal Krishan VS Sham Lal - Current Civil Cases
, 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 963, 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1438.The Supreme Court's latest stance emphasizes a strict interpretation of error apparent on the face of record, restricting review to errors that are immediately visible and clear without detailed analysis. This aligns with earlier jurisprudence, reinforcing that errors requiring reasoning or interpretation do not qualify for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The Court maintains that the purpose of review is not to correct errors of judgment but to rectify patent and obvious mistakes, ensuring judicial efficiency and stability of judgments.
References:- 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 466-
Kewal Krishan VS Sham Lal - Current Civil Cases
- 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4251- 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 781- 2024 Supreme(Online)(HP) 10164- 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 963- 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1438
In the dynamic landscape of Indian civil procedure, understanding the grounds for review under the (CPC) is crucial for litigants and legal practitioners. A common query arises: What is the latest judgment on ? While Section 11 deals with , recent discourse often intersects with review mechanisms under , particularly the concept of . This blog delves into the 's authoritative pronouncements, clarifying when a can succeed and when it cannot.
The has repeatedly emphasized a narrow scope for reviews to maintain . This post breaks down the latest findings, key precedents, and practical implications, drawing from landmark judgments. Note: This is general information and not specific legal advice. Consult a qualified lawyer for your case.
Under , a court may review its judgment if there is a mistake or . But what qualifies? The has consistently held that such an error must be , , and requiring no elaborate reasoning2022 7 Supreme 428.
As articulated in classic precedents:- In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa, AIR SC 440, the Court defined it as a , not merely a wrong decision 2017 5 Supreme 451.- Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad, AIR SC 233, clarified that the error must be on the record without lengthy reasoning2017 5 Supreme 451.- Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, () 8 SCC 715, reinforced: An error which is not and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an 2017 5 Supreme 451 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1824.
Errors needing detailed examination, scrutiny, or elucidation do not qualify 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 79. For instance, The term 'mistake or error apparent' by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 79.
The most recent authoritative pronouncement in Ram Sahu () consolidates these principles, stating that an error must strike one on mere looking at the record, not something fished out and searched 2022 7 Supreme 428. Key holdings include:- Review is not an ; it cannot or substitute conclusions 2022 7 Supreme 428 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641.- Errors requiring detailed analysis or conflicting judgments are not grounds for review 2022 7 Supreme 428.- The power is limited to patent, obvious mistakes visible upon inspection 2022 7 Supreme 428.
More recently, in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, () SCC OnLine SC 1406, the Court observed: parties are not entitled to seek review of judgement merely for the purpose of rehearing and a fresh decision of the case... An error which is not obvious and has to be detected by a process of reasoning does not qualify 2025 0 Supreme(J&K) 9. This aligns with the strict interpretation, rejecting reviews as an in disguise 2017 0 Supreme(Jhk) 1554.
In criminal contexts under Rules, mirrors this: no review except on 2024 0 Supreme(MP) 652 2024 0 Supreme(J&K) 32.
The 's stance is clear:- Nature: The error should be obvious upon a mere glance, not requiring debate 2022 7 Supreme 428 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 466.- No Reappreciation: Courts cannot revisit facts, evidence, or merits 2022 7 Supreme 428
.- Not for Disagreement: Mere dissatisfaction or subsequent developments do not suffice 2022 7 Supreme 428.
From additional jurisprudence:- If an error is not and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 79.- Review applicants must point to specific patent errors; failure leads to dismissal 2022 Supreme(Online)(CAT) 864.
| Criteria for Error Apparent | Examples Qualifying | Examples Not Qualifying ||-----------------------------|---------------------|--------------------------|| on record | Clerical mistakes, obvious misapplications 2022 7 Supreme 428 | Reanalysis of evidence, conflicting views 2022 7 Supreme 428 || No lengthy reasoning needed| Patent ignorance of law 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4251 | Detailed factual disputes 2023 0 Supreme(Gau) 963 || mistake | Misprision or inadvertence 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 466 | Wrong conclusions based on reasoning 2023 0 Supreme(All) 1438 |
While strict, exceptions exist for clear patent mistakes like clerical errors 2022 7 Supreme 428. Even in constitutional matters, the error must remain 2022 7 Supreme 428. New evidence or changed law typically falls outside unless obviously overlooked 2022 7 Supreme 428.
The Court warns against loose interpretations: One man’s justice is another’s injustice, urging restraint 2025 0 Supreme(All) 2175. Review is not for re-arguing settled issues2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641.
In Syed Ahmad Ishaque (), errors from clear ignorance or disregard of law were upheld as apparent 2023 0 Supreme(Del) 4251. Recent rejections underscore: no clear error means no review
.
The 's latest pronouncements, including Ram Sahu () and rulings, reinforce that review under is a narrow remedy for obvious, errors only. Complex issues demand appeals, preserving judicial efficiency.
Key Takeaways:- Error must be patent and strike immediately2022 7 Supreme 428.- No room for reasoning or re-examination2017 5 Supreme 451.- Seek professional advice; reviews rarely succeed without crystal-clear grounds.
This evolving jurisprudence ensures stability while correcting glaring oversights. Stay informed on CPC updates to navigate courts effectively.
References:- 2022 7 Supreme 428 Ram Sahu () and latest on errors.- 2017 5 Supreme 451 Basappa, Kamath, Parsion Devi.- 2020 0 Supreme(SC) 641 Limits on reappreciation.- 2025 0 Supreme(Jhk) 79, 2025 0 Supreme(J&K) 9, 2020 0 Supreme(Kar) 1824, 2023 0 Supreme(Cal) 466,
, etc., as cited. #SupremeCourtIndia #CPCReview #LegalUpdate
In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court was considering the phrase “mistake or error apparent on the face of record”. ... Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. ... be said ....
An error that is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. ... or error apparent on the face of the record is....
Syed Ahmad Ishaque and Others, (1955) 1 SCR 1104, where the Supreme Court held that to seek review there should be something more than a mere error, it must be one which is manifest on the face of the record and no error could be an error apparent on the face of the record ... In a civil proceeding,....
is an error apparent on record. ... In the present R.A., the review applicants failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record or any other circumstances that would warrant review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 7. ... Learned counsel for the respondents in this RA prayed for review#HL_END....
It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. When does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the Court. ... There is no error app....
Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. ... Under Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules, no review lies except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the re....
Under Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules no review lies except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record in criminal cases. ... Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of t....
It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. When does an error cease to be mere error and becomes an error apparent on the face of the record depends upon the materials placed before the Court. ... There is no error app....
Under Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules no review lies except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record in criminal cases. ... Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter-alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of th....
Under Order 40 Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules no review lies except on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record in criminal cases. ... Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of th....
“ 23. The words “justice” and “injustice”, in our view, are sometimes loosely used and have different meanings to different persons particularly to those arrayed an opposite sides. “One man’s justice is another’s injustice”. Justice Cardozo said. “The web is tangled and obscure, shot through with a multitude of shades and colours, the skeins irregular and broken. Many hues that seem to be simple, are found, when analysed, to be a complex and uncertain blend. Justice itself, which we are want t....
65.The term “mistake or error apparent” by its very connotation signifies an error which is evident per se from the record of the case and does not require detailed examination, scrutiny and elucidation either of the facts or the legal position. If an error is not self-evident and detection thereof requires long debate and process of reasoning, it cannot be treated as an error apparent on the face of the record for the purpose of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 67. In the very recent judgment in the case....
17. In Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer , (2023) SCC OnLine SC 1406, the Supreme Court has observed that the parties are not entitled to seek review of judgement merely for the purpose of rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. Applying the principles of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is said that a review of a judgement is open, inter alia, if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not obvious and has to be detected by a process of re....
In Parison Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and others [(1997) 8 SCC 715], the Hon’ble supreme Court has clarified as to what is meant by error apparent on the face of the record as under: “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the reco....
A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'." An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can. hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1, CPC ...
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
