Patna High Court

Ran Vijay Kumar @ Ranvijay Kumar GuptaversusSanjay Kumar

Decided: 16 January 2026
Disposal: DISMISSED
Bench: SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA

Holding

The review petition is not maintainable as it fails to disclose any error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient ground within the limited ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

Summary

The petitioners filed a civil review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC challenging the dismissal of their second appeal, alleging errors in the First Appellate Court's findings on amendment of the plaint and the nature of the suit property. The High Court examined whether the review petition disclosed any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or any other sufficient ground within the limited scope of review. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Court reiterated that review is not a substitute for an appeal and cannot be used to re‑appreciate evidence or re‑argue merits. It held that the First Appellate Court’s findings were based on proper appreciation of evidence and were neither perverse nor unreasonable. Consequently, the Court found no statutory ground for review and dismissed the petition.

Issues considered

Whether a civil review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is maintainable on the ground of alleged error apparent on the face of the record in the second appeal.
Whether the First Appellate Court erred in rejecting the amendment of the plaint and in characterising the suit property as joint family property.
Whether the findings of the First Appellate Court are perverse, unreasonable or otherwise warrant interference through review.
Whether the scope of review permits re‑appreciation of evidence and re‑consideration of factual findings.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — s. Order XLVII Rule 1, Section 114

Subjects

civil review
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
error apparent on the face of the record
amendment of plaint
appellate jurisdiction
partition suit
review jurisdiction

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.199 of 2022
In
SECOND APPEAL No.17 of 2015
======================================================
1. Ran Vijay Kumar @ Ranvijay Kumar Gupta Son of Late Rameshwar Prasad,
Resident of Village Pathkhauli, Post Office Malkauli, Police Station Bagaha,
District - West Champaran.
2. Bhanu Pratap Gupta son of late Rameshwar Prasad, Resident of Village
Pathkhauli, Post Office Malkauli, Police Station Bagaha, District - West
Champaran.
3. Sanjiv Kumar son of late Rameshwar Prasad, Resident of Village
Pathkhauli, Post Office Malkauli, Police Station Bagaha, District - West
Champaran.
4. Anuj Kumar son of late Rameshwar Prasad, Resident of Village Pathkhauli,
Post Office Malkauli, Police Station Bagaha, District - West Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. Sanjay Kumar son of Ganesh Prasad, Resident of Village Pathkhauli, Post
Office Malkauli, Police Station Bagaha, District - West Champaran.
2. Gita Devi wife of Ganesh Prasad, Resident of Village Pathkhauli, Post
Office Malkauli, Police Station Bagaha, District - West Champaran.
3. Sameer Kumar son of Ganesh Prasad, Resident of Village Pathkhauli, Post
Office Malkauli, Police Station Bagaha, District - West Champaran.
4. Sachine Kumar son of Ganesh Prasad, Resident of Village Pathkhauli, Post
Office Malkauli, Police Station Bagaha, District - West Champaran.
5. Sandeep Kumar son of Ganesh Prasad, Resident of Village Pathkhauli, Post
Office Malkauli, Police Station Bagaha, District - West Champaran.
6. Amriteshwar Prasad son of Late Sakaldeo Prasad, Resident of Village
Pathkhauli, Post Office Malkauli, Police Station Bagaha, District - West
Champaran.
7. Most. Asha Devi W/o Late Vijay Prasad, Resident of Village Pathkhauli,
Post Office Malkauli, Police Station Bagaha, District - West Champaran.
8. Rahul Kumar S/o Late Vijay Kumar Prasad, Resident of Village Pathkhauli,
Post Office Malkauli, Police Station Bagaha, District - West Champaran.
9. Motilal Prasad son of Late Narain Prasad, Resident of Village Pathkhauli,
Post Office Malkauli, Police Station Bagaha, District - West Champaran.
10. Radhey Shyam Prasad son of Late Narain Prasad, Resident of Village
Pathkhauli, Post Office Malkauli, Police Station Bagaha, District - West
Champaran.
11. Arun Kumar Prasad son of Late Narain Prasad, Resident of Village
Pathkhauli, Post Office Malkauli, Police Station Bagaha, District - West
Champaran.
12. Mithilesh Kumar minor son of Sakaldeo Prasad, the father and natural
Patna High Court C. REV. No.199 of 2022 dt.16-01-2026
2/10

guardian, Resident of Village Pathkhauli, Post Office Malkauli, Police
Station Bagaha, District - West Champaran.
13. Kamlesh Kumar minor son of Sakaldeo Prasad, the father and natural
guardian, Resident of Village Pathkhauli, Post Office Malkauli, Police
Station Bagaha, District - West Champaran.
14. Rakesh Kumar son of Rajendra Prasad, Resident of Village Pathkhauli, Post
Office Malkauli, Police Station Bagaha, District - West Champaran.
15. Indu Devi wife of Harendra Prasad Gupta, Resident of Village Narainpur,
Police Station Bagaha, District - West Champaran.

... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate
Mr. Vaibhav Kr. Jha, Advocate
Ms. Shristi, Advocate
Ms. Karnika, Advocate
Mr. Navin Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Bhushan Bharat, Advocate
For the Opposite Party/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUNIL DUTTA MISHRA
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Date : 16-01-2026

1. This review application has been filed under

Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

(hereinafter referred to as “C.P.C.”) against the judgment dated

02.08.2022 passed by this Court in Second Appeal No.17 of

2015 (hereinafter referred to as “impugned judgment”) which

was dismissed on the ground that no substantial question of law

arose for consideration in the second appeal filed by the

appellants.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.

3. The learned Trial Court dismissed the suit

bearing Title Partition Suit No.94 of 1984 on contest filed by
Patna High Court C. REV. No.199 of 2022 dt.16-01-2026
3/10

plaintiffs vide judgment dated 30.08.1996 and decree dated

18.09.1996. The learned First Appellate Court vide judgment

dated 01.11.2014 also dismissed the appeal on contest bearing

Title appeal No.76 of 1996 filed by the appellant nos.1 to 5/

plaintiffs in which appellant nos.6 to 9, who were defendant nos.

9 to 12 in the learned Trial Court and respondent nos. 7 to 10 in

the appeal, were transposed in the said appeal on their prayer

that appellant nos. 1 to 5 have their interest to contest the

appeal.

4. The Second Appeal No.17 of 2015 filed by the

petitioners herein has been dismissed by this Court vide

judgment dated 02.08.2022. This Court after considering the

submission on behalf of the appellants, on perusal of judgment

of both the Courts i.e. learned Trial Court and learned First

Appellate Court, and the materials on record held that the

findings are based upon appreciation of evidence on record and

there is no perversity or unreasonableness in the finding. It was

observed that the First Appellate Court is a final fact finding

authority and in absence of demonstrated perversity in its

findings, interference by this Court in the Second Appeal was

not warranted. Aggrieved by the said dismissal of Second

Appeal filed by the appellants/petitioners, the appellants/
Patna High Court C. REV. No.199 of 2022 dt.16-01-2026
4/10

petitioners have preferred this Civil Review.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted

that the impugned judgment suffers from error apparent on the

face of the record and has been passed with material irregularity

in exercise of its jurisdiction. It is submitted that this Court

failed to consider that respondent nos. 7 to 10 who were

defendant nos. 9 to 12 (sons of defendant no.2) upon

transposition as appellant nos.6 to 9, petitioners herein, acquired

all rights of the plaintiffs, including the right to seek amendment

of the plaint filed by the plaintiffs at any stage and rejection of

their amendment petitions dated 18.09.2009 and 13.10.2014 by

the learned First Appellate Court is illegal and not sustainable in

law. It is further submitted that the learned First Appellate Court

held that the suit property in Schedule-II is joint property rather

it is separate property of contesting respondent no.1 and his

descendants and thereby reversed the finding of the learned

Trial Court that the suit property is joint family property which

is erroneous in law. Therefore, it is submitted that the impugned

judgment suffers from manifest errors apparent on the face of

the record and warrants review.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners has referred

the judgment of Hon’ble Full Court of this Court in the case of
Patna High Court C. REV. No.199 of 2022 dt.16-01-2026
5/10

High Court of Judicature at Patna v. K.K. Chaubey reported in

2015 (4) PLJR 328 particularly paragraph no.32 on the scope of

review which is reproduced hereinbelow:-

“32. The law, on the subject of review, may, in
the light of the discussions held, as a whole, be
summarized thus:—
(i) Ordinarily, a court or a tribunal cannot
review its order or decision if the statute does
not confer on the court or the tribunal, as the
case may be, the power to review its own order.
This apart, whatever limitations are imposed by
a statute, while conferring the power of review
on a court or a tribunal, the court or the
tribunal, as the case may be, must adhere to the
limitations, which the relevant statute may
impose on the exercise of such power. Section
114 CPC, which embodies the substantive
power of review of a civil court, does not impose
any limitations on the court's power to review
its order or decision; yet the power of review
even by a civil court cannot be unguided and
uncanalised, for, Order 47, Rule 1 circumscribes
the court's power of review.
(ii) Though, at one point of time, it was considered
to be a rule of universal application that review
by a court of its order is not possible except on
three prescribed grounds, namely, (i) discovery
of new and important matter or evidence, which,
after the exercise of due diligence, was not
within the applicant's knowledge or could not be
produced by him at the time, when the decree or
order was passed, and (ii) mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record, or (iii) any
such sufficient ground, which is analogous to
the two grounds aforementioned, the subsequent
development of law, on the subject of review, has
shown that the grounds referred to, namely, that
any sufficient ground must be analogous to the
two sufficient grounds aforementioned is no
longer a rule of universal application.
(iii) One of the cases, which has helped in the
expansion of the court's power to review its
order is the case of Lily Thomas (supra)
Patna High Court C. REV. No.199 of 2022 dt.16-01-2026
6/10

inasmuch as Lily Thomas (supra) ruled that
ordinarily, the power of review, being a creature
of statute, cannot be exercised as an inherent
power, yet such technicalities of law may have
to be bent, in an appropriate cases, for the
purpose of correcting an order (sic— error?)
committed by the court if such an error arises
out of a presumption of fact, which was non-
existent, and when the court finds that its refusal
to review its own error would cause, or has
caused, grave miscarriage of justice.
(iv) It is essentially the principle behind the
doctrine of “actus curiae neminem gravabit”,
which has made the court hold, in Municipal
Board, Pratabgarh (supra), that when a court
corrects and rectifies an error, it restores the
rule of law and not defeat it. Even Rajesh D.
Darbar v. Narasingrao Krishnaji Kulkarni,
reported in (2003) 7 SCC 219, recognises that
in an exceptional case, a court may have to
review its order by invoking the doctrine of
“actus curiae neminem gravabit”.”
7. This Court has given anxious consideration to

the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioners, perused

the materials on record and considered the settled principles

governing the scope of review jurisdiction.

8. At the outset, it is required to be noted that the

scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. is

extremely limited. A judgment may be reviewed only on

discovery of new and important matter or evidence, or on

account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the

record, or for any other sufficient reason analogous thereto. A

review proceeding cannot be permitted to be used as an appeal

in disguise, nor can it be invoked for rehearing the matter on
Patna High Court C. REV. No.199 of 2022 dt.16-01-2026
7/10

merits or for re-appreciation of evidence already considered and

adjudicated upon.

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in S. Murali

Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan & Ors. reported in (2023) 13

SCC 515 has held with respect to the scope of the review

application as under:

“16. While considering the aforesaid issue
two decisions of this Court on Order 47 Rule
1 read with Section 114 CPC are required to
be referred to? In Perry Kansagra v. Smriti
Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC 753 this
Court has observed that while exercising the
review jurisdiction in an application under
Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC,
the Review Court does not sit in appeal over
its own order. It is observed that a rehearing
of the matter is impermissible in law. It is
further observed that review is not appeal in
disguise. It is observed that power of review
can be exercised for correction of a mistake
but not to substitute a view. Such powers can
be exercised within the limits of the statute
dealing with the exercise of power. It is
further observed that it is wholly unjustified
and exhibits a tendency to rewrite a
judgment by which the controversy has been
finally decided.

17. After considering a catena of decisions
on exercise of review powers and principles
relating to exercise of review jurisdiction
under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC this Court had
summed up as under:Perry Kansagra v.
Smriti Madan Kansagra, (2019) 20 SCC
753] , SCC pp. 768-69, para 15.1)
“15.1. ‘33. … “… (i) Review proceedings
are not by way of appeal and have to be
strictly confined to the scope and ambit of
Patna High Court C. REV. No.199 of 2022 dt.16-01-2026
8/10

Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
(ii) Power of review may be exercised
when some mistake or error apparent on the
fact of record is found. But error on the face
of record must be such an error which must
strike one on mere looking at the record and
would not require any long-drawn process of
reasoning on the points where there may
conceivably be two opinions.
(iii) Power of review may not be
exercised on the ground that the decision
was erroneous on merits.
(iv) Power of review can also be
exercised for any sufficient reason which is
wide enough to include a misconception of
fact or law by a court or even an advocate.
(v) An application for review may be
necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine
actus curiae neminem gravabit.” ’ (As
observed in : Inderchand Jain v. Motilal,
(2009) 14 SCC 663, p. 675, para 33)”
It is further observed in the said decision
that an error which is required to be
detected by a process of reasoning can
hardly be said to be an error on the face of
the record.

18. Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam
SEB, (2020) 2 SCC 677 : (2020) 2 SCC
(Civ) 788, it is observed and held that scope
of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC read
with Section 114 CPC is limited and under
the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue questions
which have already been addressed and
decided. It is further observed that 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 record justifying the court to exercise
its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1
CPC.”

10. It is well-settled that an error which is not self-
Patna High Court C. REV. No.199 of 2022 dt.16-01-2026
9/10

evident and which requires a long-drawn process of reasoning to

establish cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of

the record. The impugned judgment of this Court in Second

Appeal has recorded clear reasons for declining interference,

holding that the findings of the learned First Appellate Court

were based on appreciation of evidence and suffered from

neither perversity nor unreasonableness, and that no substantial

question of law arose for consideration.

11. Moreover, on perusal of the judgment dated

11.11.2014 passed by the learned First Appellate Court and

considering the facts and circumstances of the instant review

application, it is explicit that the learned First Appellate Court

has duly addressed and determined on the point of amendment

in the plaint with respect to the transposed defendants on merit

of the case.

12. In the instant review application, it is evident

that the petitioners are essentially seeking a re-consideration of

the findings recorded by this Court in the Second Appeal as well

as the findings of the learned First Appellate Court on question

of facts and law. The issues sought to be raised pertain to

appreciation of evidence, burden of proof, maintainability of

amendment at the appellate stage and the manner in which the
Patna High Court C. REV. No.199 of 2022 dt.16-01-2026
10/10

learned First Appellate Court dealt with the findings of the

learned Trial Court. Such grounds, even if assumed to be

arguable, do not constitute an error apparent on the face of

record so as to attract the limited jurisdiction of this Court in

civil review.

13. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court

is of the considered opinion that none of the grounds urged in

the review application satisfies the statutory parameters laid

down under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. The petitioners

have failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the

record or any other sufficient reason warranting interference

with the judgment under review. Consequently, the review

petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed.

14. Accordingly, the instant civil review is

dismissed.

15. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Sunil Dutta Mishra, J)
Ritik/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE 09.01.2026
Uploading Date 16.01.2026
Transmission Date NA

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…