EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATIONversusSHINGAR LIMITED

     C/MCA/402/2026                               ORDER DATED: 10/02/2026




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

        R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 402 of 2026

                 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/270/2025

================================================================
         EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION & ORS.
                            Versus
                       SHINGAR LIMITED
================================================================
Appearance:
MR AV NAIR(5602) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3
MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Opponent(s) No. 1
================================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M.
       PRACHCHHAK

                            Date : 10/02/2026

                                 ORAL ORDER


1.      Present application is    led by the applicants under Order 47
Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for review of the order dated
28.11.2025 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 270 of
2025.


2.      Heard Mr. A.V. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the
applicants and Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent.


3.      Learned counsel Mr. Nair has submitted that on account of
certain factual and legal errors apparent on the part of the earlier
advocate representing the petitioner-department, who had not
produced relevant documents, the present application is led seeking
review of the order passed by this Court. He has submitted that the
department had not properly instructed the learned advocate
representing its case and at the time of deciding the main petition,


                                   Page 1 of 5
     C/MCA/402/2026                               ORDER DATED: 10/02/2026




relevant documents were not produced before this Court and
therefore, learned counsel Mr. Nair has urged that this Court may
review / recall the order dated 28.11.2025 passed in Special Civil
Application No. 270 of 2025 and adjudicate the main petition on
merits.


4.    Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Dipak R. Dave, appearing for
the respondent has opposed the present application and submitted
that the present application for review / recall is not maintainable and
there is no error committed by this Court in passing the impugned
order. He has submitted that the Court has considered the
submissions of both the sides, and after considering the facts of the
case and after perusing the order passed by the concerned authority,
the Court has decided the main petition and thus, there is no any
error or any illegality committed by this Court while passing the
impugned order and therefore, the present application be dismissed.
In support of his submissions, learned counsel Mr. Dave has referred
and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in
case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors., reported in AIR
2013 SC 3301.


5.    I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective
parties and perused the material placed on record. The scope and
ambit of review as provided under Order 41, Rule 1 of CPC, now it is
well settled that if, there is an error apparent on the face of the record
committed by the Court, under such circumstances, the review
application can be entertained and power is exercised by the Court to
correct any mistake committed by the Court. In the case on hand, it is
not a case where the Court has committed any error while passing the
impugned order. The impugned order was passed on the basis of the


                                 Page 2 of 5
      C/MCA/402/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 10/02/2026




documents which were produced on record.


5.1    At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of
the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy
vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Others, reported in [2022] 17 SCC
255, wherein, it has been observed and held in paragraph 33 as
under :

       Head Note A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Or.47 R.1 – Review –
       Scope of Erroneous decision distinguished from error apparent on
       face of record – Law clari/ed

       - Held, court’s jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal –
       A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent
       on face of record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of
       reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on face of record for
       court to exercise its powers of review under Or.47 R.1

       - In guise of exercising powers of review, court can correct a mistake but
       not substitute view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of
       taking two views in a matter

       - A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important
       matter of evidence has emerged after passing of judgment, subject to
       condition that such evidence was not within knowledge of party seeking
       review or could not be produced by it when order was made despite
       undertaking an exercise of due diligence

       - There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error
       apparent on face of record - An erroneous decision can be corrected by
       superior court, however an error apparent on face of record can only be
       corrected by exercising review jurisdiction - Words and Phrases – "Error
       apparent on the face of the record"

       Head Note D. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Or.47 R.1-Successive
       review petitions - Maintainability on ground of producing "genuine"
       documents and not new documents - Held, not maintainable as
       producing genuine document is not discovery of new document

       - No error apparent on face of record - Filing of successive review petitions
       amounts to abuse of process of law

       The issues for determination before the Supreme Court were:

       (1) Whether the High Court ought to have entertained successive review



                                     Page 3 of 5
C/MCA/402/2026                                     ORDER DATED: 10/02/2026




 petitions 3led by the respondents when they could not demonstrate
 emergence of any new facts or point out any error apparent on the face of
 the record?

 (2) What is the court's jurisdiction of review?

 Allowing the appeals the Supreme Court
 Held:

         It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court in several
 judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the
 same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a
 mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that
 has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an
 error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers
 of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.

         In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a
 mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a
 possibility of taking two views in a matter.

        A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important
 matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to
 the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party
 seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made
 despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence.

         There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as
 against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision
 can be corrected by the superior court, however an error apparent on the
 face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction.

        Yet another circumstance referred to in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for
 reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other su8cient
 reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason su8cient
 on grounds, at least analogous to those speci3ed in the rule".

 33. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been
 consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the
 Court’s jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A
 judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent
 on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process
 of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the
 record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order 47 Rule 1
 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a
 mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a
 possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to
 review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after
 passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was
 not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be
 produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise



                                Page 4 of 5
         C/MCA/402/2026                                                          ORDER DATED: 10/02/2026




           of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision
           as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous
           decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent
           on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review
           jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order 47 Rule 1 for
           reviewing a judgment has been described as “for any other su8cient
           reason”. The said phrase has been explained to mean “a reason su8cient
           on grounds, at least analogous to those speci3ed in the rule” (Refer: Chajju
           Ram v. Neki Ram17 and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most
           Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others18).”


 6.          In overall view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to
 entertained the present application and the same is required to be
 dismissed and accordingly, the present application is hereby
 dismissed.



                                                                     (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J)

 Dolly




Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: DOLLYBEN CHETANBHAI VADUKAR(HC01392), PRIVATE SECRETARY, at High Court of Gujarat on 16/02/2026 15:56:22

                                                     Page 5 of 5