Madras High Court· 07 September 2026

Can a review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC be used to re-argue the matter?

MADEVA NAICKER v. T.C.SWAMYAPPA

REV.APPL No. 138 of 2022
Coram: Justice Shamim Ahmed

🔖 Save this judgment 🔔 Follow Order 47 Rule 1, Code of Civil P…📬 Get today's judgments

View the original judgment PDFFree to read. To download it — or the LexStreak typeset copy with the headnote and Points of Law — create an account; downloads are part of the Pro plan.

Answer

A review cannot be used to re-argue the matter in the garb of review.

No. A review cannot be used to re-argue the matter in the garb of review. The scope of review is very limited and the Applicant is not allowed to argue the case afresh; grounds which on the face of it constitute an attempt to re-argue the matter make out no valid ground to attract the provisions under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, and a Review is not an appeal in disguise.

Headnote

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 47 Rule 1 — Review — Error apparent on the face of the record — Scope of review — Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 47 Rule 1 — Review — Correction of error, not to substitute a view — Held: A review lies only to correct an error apparent on the face of the record, not to substitute a view. An error which is not self evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning is not such an error. (¶8, 16) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 47 Rule 1 — Review — Re-arguing the matter in the garb of review — Held further: Grounds that raise the same story already pleaded in the appeal are an attempt to re-argue the matter in the garb of review, and make out no valid ground under Order 47 Rule 1. Review application dismissed. (¶7, 16, 17)

Headnote

You've used your free headnotes this month

The answer above and the Court's own paragraphs stay free. LexStreak's full headnote on this judgment needs an account — a free one opens it again.

Create my free account

In the Court's own words

Paragraph 6The scope of review is very limited. The Applicant is not allowed to argue the case afresh and open the pandora box.

Paragraph 7Further, on perusing the grounds, taken in this review application, by the Applicant, which, on the face of it and virtually, are constituting an attempt to re-argue the matter, which cannot be done, in the garb of review. In fact, the Applicant has not made any valid ground to attract the provisions under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, but made only vague averments.

Paragraph 8A Review is not an appeal in disguise. Rehearing of the matter is impermissible in the garb of review. Power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and not to substitute a view. It is an exception to the general rule that once a judgement is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered, as has been, time and again, held by the several judgements of the Honourable Supreme Court, which are quoted as under.

Acts & Sections

Order 47 Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

One judgment a day. That's the whole habit.

Read the full text of MADEVA NAICKER v. T.C.SWAMYAPPA — and get the Madras High Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.

Create my free account

Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India

Open the full judgment →

Also decided in this judgment

Does a review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC lie only for an error apparent on the face of the record?

Plain-language answer prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment. Source: Madras High Court. Corrections