Introduction
On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India delivered a significant ruling in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another, reiterating the strict limitations on the exercise of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Bench comprising Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti emphasized that a review petition cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. The judgment is an important reminder of the fundamental distinction between review proceedings and appellate jurisdiction, ensuring that courts do not misuse their powers by reopening concluded issues under the garb of review.
This article provides a detailed analysis of the Supreme Court’s ruling, the legal principles governing review jurisdiction, and its implications in civil litigation, particularly in partition suits and succession disputes.
Review Petition vs. Appeal: Key Distinction
A review petition allows a court to reconsider its own judgment, but only in limited circumstances. Its purpose is to correct a patent error on the face of the record, not to rehear the case as if it were an appeal.
- Review Jurisdiction (Order 47 Rule 1 CPC):
Limited to correcting glaring errors, considering newly discovered evidence, or addressing other sufficient reasons analogous to these grounds. - Appellate Jurisdiction:
Involves a comprehensive reassessment of the matter, allowing the higher court to re-examine evidence, law, and findings of the lower court.
The Supreme Court reiterated that expanding review jurisdiction into appellate powers would undermine the finality of judgments and delay justice delivery.
Grounds for Review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
The Bench clearly outlined the three permissible grounds on which a review petition may be entertained:
- Discovery of New and Important Evidence
- The evidence must be relevant and material.
- It should not have been available despite due diligence when the original judgment was delivered.
- Error Apparent on the Face of the Record
- The error must be obvious, self-evident, and not requiring elaborate reasoning.
- A wrong decision on merits is not the same as an error apparent on the face of the record.
- Any Other Sufficient Reason
- This is interpreted narrowly.
- It must be similar in scope to the first two grounds, not a blanket license for re-litigation.
Facts of the Case: Partition Suit and Succession Rights
The case arose out of a partition suit filed in 2000 by a son against his father. The daughter was initially not impleaded.
- 2003: An ex-parte preliminary decree was passed.
- 2004: The father sold part of the property to a third party and settled the rest in favor of his daughter.
- 2005: Application for final decree filed.
- 2008: Father executed a will in favor of the daughter.
- 2011: Upon the father’s death, the daughter was impleaded as his legal heir.
- 2013: The purchaser of the property was added to proceedings.
Later, in 2018, the daughter sought to amend the preliminary decree to claim rights as a coparcener under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005.
- Trial Court (2019): Rejected her claim, holding the amendment could not apply retrospectively.
- High Court (2022): Reversed the trial court and upheld her entitlement as a coparcener.
- High Court Review (2024): On review, remanded the case back to the trial court for fresh consideration.
Aggrieved by this review order, the daughter approached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court’s Ruling
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s review order, holding that it had exceeded its jurisdiction by reappreciating facts and overturning its earlier findings as though exercising appellate powers.
Key Observations:
- On Jurisdictional Limits:
“The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.”
- On High Court’s Error:
The High Court had not identified any error apparent on the face of the record but had instead reassessed the case as if hearing an appeal. - On Partition Suit:
The High Court’s review order went beyond the limited scope of review by re-examining substantive findings on partition and succession rights. - Final Directions:
- The earlier High Court order (2022) recognizing the daughter’s coparcenary rights under the 2005 Hindu Succession Amendment was restored.
- The trial court was directed to dispose of all pending applications within three months.
Legal Significance of the Ruling
This ruling is significant for multiple reasons:
- Reinforces Judicial Discipline:
Courts must respect the finality of judgments and avoid using review jurisdiction as a backdoor for appeals. - Clarifies Scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC:
The Supreme Court’s reiteration ensures that litigants do not misuse review petitions to indefinitely prolong proceedings. - Impact on Succession and Partition Cases:
The recognition of the daughter’s coparcenary rights aligns with the 2005 Amendment to the Hindu Succession Act, promoting gender equality in inheritance law. - Guidance for High Courts:
The judgment serves as a precedent to prevent High Courts from overstepping their jurisdiction in review proceedings.
Counsel Appearance
- For the Petitioner (Daughter):
Senior Advocate V. Prabhakar with Advocates E.R. Sumathy, Jyoti Parasher, and Harmeet Kaur. - For the Respondents:
Advocates Shobha Ramamoorthy, Shilp Vinod, Gokulakrisnan, Avinash Ranjan, Dr. G. Sivabalamurugan, Selvaraj Mahendran, C. Adhikesavan, Harikrishnan P.V., Dhass Prathap Singh, C. Kavin Ananth, and Vibha Srivastava.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another marks a critical reaffirmation of the limited scope of review jurisdiction under the CPC. By setting aside the High Court’s overreaching review order, the apex court has sent a strong message: a review petition is not an appeal in disguise.
The ruling also reinforces the importance of finality in litigation, prevents unnecessary judicial delays, and upholds the legislative intent behind the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, ensuring daughters enjoy equal inheritance rights as coparceners.
For litigants and practitioners, the case stands as a guiding precedent—review petitions must be filed and argued within their strict legal limits, and cannot be used as a substitute for appellate remedies.
Also Read
