Skip to main content
← back
Informative

Madhya Pradesh High Court: Scope of Review Under Order XLVII CPC Is Extremely Limited; Re-arguing Merits Not Permissible.

Update / Judgement Date

06 Jun 2026

Source

WCP News Bulletin

Author

Sakshi Bhardwaj — WCP Legal Desk

Reading Time

3 min read

Civil LawOther Legal Matters
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Scope of Review Under Order XLVII CPC Is Extremely Limited; Re-arguing Merits Not Permissible.
WCP News Bulletin
Headnote:

The Madhya Pradesh High Court dismissed a review petition holding that review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is extremely limited and cannot be invoked to re-argue factual or legal issues already considered. The Court reiterated that an erroneous decision by itself is not a ground for review, and that only an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important evidence can justify review.


Background :

• The petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Petition challenging the Trial Court’s order dated 08.02.2023 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ratlam in Execution Case No. 249-A/2017.

• The Trial Court had rejected the petitioner’s objection relating to limitation under Article 135 of the Limitation Act, holding that execution of a permanent injunction was not time-barred.

• The Miscellaneous Petition (MP No. 1931/2023) was dismissed by the High Court on 18.11.2025.

• Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

Contentions of the Petitioner

• The execution application was confined only to enforcement of a mandatory injunction, not a perpetual injunction.

• The execution application was wrongly treated as one under Order XXI Rule 32 CPC, whereas it was filed under Order XXI Rule 11 CPC.

• Therefore, Article 135 of the Limitation Act applied, rendering the execution proceedings time-barred.

• The Court allegedly failed to consider the factual pleadings properly, warranting review.


Court’s Observations:

• Review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-examine or re-appreciate evidence or arguments already dealt with.

• No new and important matter or evidence was produced by the petitioner.

• No error apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated.

• All submissions raised in the review petition had already been considered in the original Miscellaneous Petition.

• Reliance was placed on settled law governing review jurisdiction, including:

  1. Board of Control for Cricket in India v. Netaji Cricket Club (AIR 2005 SC 592)
  2. Union of India v. Harinagar Sugar Mills Ltd. (AIR 2008 Gau 161)
  3. Akhilesh Yadav v. Vishwanath Chaturvedi (2013 AIR SCW 1316)


Legal Principles Reiterated:

• Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC permits review only on:

  1. Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
  2. Error apparent on the face of the record
  3. Any other sufficient reason (narrowly construed)
  4. • Subsequent change in law or reversal of precedent is not a ground for review.
  5. • Erroneous or debatable decisions do not warrant review.
Decision

• The Review Petition was dismissed as devoid of merits.

• The Court clarified that the petitioner is at liberty to raise objections before the Trial Court, if permissible, in relation to paragraph 13 of the impugned order.

Ratio Decidendi

Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII CPC is strictly limited and cannot be invoked to re-argue the merits of a case; absence of an error apparent on the face of the record is fatal to a review petition.