In a commercial suit for patent infringement, A filed an application seeking
production of third party agreement of B. The Commercial Court allowed the same.
A filed application under Order 43 R1 seeking review of the order, it is B's
contention that when interrogatories were already refused, there was no need to
allow production of third party agreement because as per pleading, it has no
The HC refused to interfere, holding that review jurisdiction is not
an appeal and not every error can be corrected here. The court cannot look into
pleadings and detailed evidence and their reasoning in review jurisdiction.
- A review can by no means an appeal in disguise where an erroneous decision
is reheard and corrected, as has been sought to be urged in the present
matter. Throughout, the emphasis has been on the erroneous understanding of
the pleadings of the parties, which, has resulted in erroneous conclusions,
resulting further in erroneous decisions.
- A rehearing is not possible to correct all these "errors". Such a
re-hearing and re-appraisal of the material on record including pleadings,
would fall within the scope of an appeal and not review. "Error" has to be
an error apparent on the face of the record to attract the provisions of
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC and must be a patent error which alone can be
looked into in review proceedings.
- Fresh and additional material cannot be pressed into service to seek a
review of an order. Minor mistakes of inconsequential importance are
insufficient to seek a review. Only when circumstances of a substantial and
compelling character make it necessary to do so, can review be sought. The
normal principle is that what is pronounced by the court is final, else,
there must be some manifest wrong caused leading to miscarriage of justice.
Particular, while seeking review of orders passed in a civil suit, the
grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC have to be satisfied,
which would not equate the hearing with the original hearing of the case or
a hearing in an appeal. Even where the view adopted by the court is a
possible view that can be taken, it would not be a case of an error apparent
on the face of the record.
Written By: Shubham Budhiraja
- CS(COMM) 383/2020
(Advocate, Delhi High Court)
Email: [email protected]
, Ph no: 9654055315