In review jurisdiction, Court shall interfere only when there is a glaring omission or patent mistake

In Amar Nath Vs. Jee Ram and Ors before Delhi High Court,  the Petitioner herein was the son of the Respondents. The Petitioner is 52 years of age and thus the Respondents must be more than 75 years of age. The suit of the Respondents for possession against the Petitioner in respect of their property, was decreed vide judgment. By way of the present petition, the Petitioner seeks review of the judgment. 

The term 'mistake or error apparent' by its very meaning implies an error which is apparent on the face of the record of the case and does not require comprehensive 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 XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure,1908 (CPC). An order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the Court/Tribunal on a point of fact or law. In any case, while exercising the power of review, the Court/Tribunal concerned cannot sit in appeal over its judgment/decision. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. In review jurisdiction, the court shall interfere only when there is a glaring omission or patent mistake or when a grave error has crept in the impugned judgment. 

The submissions and issues advanced by the Counsel of the Petitioner are erroneous on the face of law and cannot sustain. Error considered under the rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. No such error has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner seeking review of the judgment. It has been time and again held that, the power of review jurisdiction can be exercised for the correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view and considering the same the Petitioner cannot be permitted to re-argue the very same points. No sufficient cause has been shown for reviewing the judgment. As the point is already dealt with and answered, the Petitioner is not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that, an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. 

All pleas raised before present Court were in fact addressed for and on behalf of the Petitioner which, after considering those pleas, the judgment in the was passed. Therefore, the Petitioner has not made out any case within the meaning of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC for reviewing the judgment. The petition is misconceived and bereft of any substance therefore, the present review petition is dismissed.