Review application seeking reconsideration of an appeal judgment that had upheld a trial court's temporary injunction in a partition suit, contending the suit was barred by res judicata and a prior Lok Adalat award. The Court held no error apparent on the record existed and that a later Supreme Court ruling cannot ground review.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE SIDE
Present:-
The Hon’ble Justice Madhuresh Prasad And
The Hon’ble Justice Prasenjit Biswas
R.V.W. 186 of 2024
Sri Samrat Samanta & Ors. Vs.
Sri Somesh Dhara & Ors.
In
F.M.A. 1271 of 2022
Sri Samrat Samanta & Ors. Vs.
Sri Somesh Dhara & Ors.
For the Appellants : Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya, Mr. Sibasis Ghosh, Ms. Oindrila Chatterjee, Ms. Subhangi Bhattacharya For the Respondents : Mr. Animesh Paul Judgment on : 17.03.2026
Madhuresh Prasad, J.:
2
3
Adalat and such award is not binding on them. Relying upon an order passed earlier in a First Appeal (FA) 364 of 1977 wherein the Division Bench categorically observed that letter of administration on basis of a compromise is unknown to law and such compromise cannot be given effect, it was also contended that the award was illegal, collusive and void. Therefore, the award was not binding upon the plaintiff and open to challenge.
“Though all the parties have admitted the factum of compromise having entered therein but the grant of the letters of administration does not reveal such fact. Obviously the observation of this Court in the said appeal was on the basis of an admitted fact which cannot by any stretch of imagination be construed to have nullified or set aside such grant. It is mere an obiter on the proposition of law that the Probate Court being the Court of conscience cannot issue a grant de hors the Will or altering and/or superseding the last wish and desire the maker of the said Will. The grant of the letters of administration is still operative and cannot be perceived otherwise on the basis of such observation. The jurisdiction exercised by the Probate Court as a Court of conscience is limited to the extent of giving sanctity to the genuinity and the authenticity of the Will and cannot travel beyond it. The Probate Court does not decide the title of the parties in the property even if the same forms an integral part
4
of the estate of the testator and we do not find any embargo in approaching the Civil Court for declaration of title. We are, therefore, unable to accept the contention of the appellant that the defendant/appellant has miserably failed to make out a prima facie case since the arguments were not advanced on the merit of the impugned order. We need not have to delve into it and the points which have been urged is decided as aforesaid.
We thus do not find any ground for interference with the impugned order. The appeal fails. All connected applications are accordingly dismissed.”
5
Court in the case of Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and Others reported in 2005 (4) SCC 741, Chairman and Managing Director, Central Bank of India and Others vs. Central Bank of India Scheduled Castes/ Scheduled Tribes Employees Welfare Association and Others reported in 2016 (13) SCC 135, Yatinder Kumar Aggarwal and Others vs. Mukund Swarup and Others reported in 2019 (3) SCC 687.
6
passing the judgment, review of which is sought. A third circumstance justifying the invocation a review jurisdiction is for any other sufficient reasons. The explanation to order 47 Rule 1, CPC reads:
"Explanation- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment."
7
consideration a subsequent event. In a case of this nature when the Court accepts its own mistake in understanding the nature and purport of the undertaking given by the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Board and its correlation with as to what transpired in the AGM of the Board held on 29-9-2004, the subsequent event may be taken into consideration by the Court for the purpose of rectifying its own mistake.”
Director, Central Bank of India and Others ( supra ) was also
rendered in co-relation to the facts arising therein, which are distinguishable from the facts and circumstances of the present case, evident from the following extract of the judgment of the Apex
Court:
“11. We find adequate force in the aforesaid submission of the learned Attorney General. We have already reproduced those paragraphs of the judgment i.e. paras 26 to 32, wherein after interpreting OM dated 13-8-1997, it is categorically held that this OM does not provide for any reservation. This is so stated in the opening lines of para 34 as well by emphasising that there is no reservation in promotion by selection within Group A posts, which carry an ultimate salary of Rs 5700 per month and it is only concession that applies. This conclusion is followed with the observation that contention of the banks in this behalf has been accepted. In spite thereof, in the very next line of para 34, it is observed: (SC/ST Employees Welfare case [Central Bank of India v. SC/ST Employees Welfare Assn., (2015) 12 SCC 308 : (2016) 1 SCC (L&S) 355] , SCC p. 328)
8
“34. … Significantly, what follows is that reservation is provided in promotion by selection qua those posts which carry an ultimate salary of less than Rs 5700 per month (pre-revised).”
12. It is clearly an error on the face of the record inasmuch as no such consequence follows. In fact, the aforesaid quoted portion is directly in conflict with not only the earlier portion of para 34, but the entire conclusion on the issue on which there is a detailed discussion from paras 26 to 32 and even in earlier paragraphs of the judgment. It is this error, which is apparent on the face of the record viz. the reservation is provided in promotion by selection in respect of posts carrying salary of less than Rs 5700 per month, that has led to further error that such reservation in the matter of promotion is applicable from Scale I upward up to Scale VI. ”
9
compliance with the order of the High Court. The appeal against the order passed by the learned District Judge was also dismissed by the High Court. Under such circumstance the defendant/judgment debtor filed the review annexing the various challans showing amounts deposited in the executing court from time to time. In the review proceeding the respondent also could not dispute the fact of such payments being made by the judgment debtor. The Apex Court, therefore, took note of such facts and recalled the order holding that it would not be feasible to sell the property of the defendant/judgment debtor. There is no such admitted position regarding any error apparent on the face of the record arising in the present case. Therefore, there is no scope for the review applicant to rely on decision in Yatinder Kumar
Aggarwal and Others ( supra ).
10
16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
16.3. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”.
16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.
16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.”
Agarwal (supra) was considered by the apex court in its order
dated 02.09.2025 passed in the case of The Canara Bank & Ors.
( supra), relied upon by the learned Advocate for the respondent, wherein the apex Court held:
“5. The petitioner having gone into deep sleep for eight long years suddenly woke up from his slumber to file a review petition, obviously, as could be seen from recitals or the
11
averments extracted in the impugned order whereby similar employee had been extended the benefit, which seems to have triggered the petitioner to file a review petition or in other words, the subsequent law laid down in case of another employee enlightened the petitioner to file a review petition. In fact, the Review Petition itself is not maintainable inasmuch as Explanation to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is a complete answer to the same. It clearly prohibits filing of review petition due to subsequent judgment and the expression used thereunder is a complete answer to this proposition which reads thus:
“Explanation- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.”
6. On this short ground alone, the present appeal succeeds. This view would also get fortified by the judgment of this Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, (2024) 2 SCC 362 and also the judgment in 4 State (NCT of Delhi) v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd., (2024) 7 SCC 315 whereunder it came to be held as follows:
“110. We, thus, hold that no review is available upon a change or reversal of a proposition of law by a superior court or by a larger Bench of this Court overruling its earlier exposition of law whereon the judgment/order under review was based. We also hold that notwithstanding the fact that Pune Municipal Corpn. [(2014) 3 SCC 183 : (2014) 2 SCC (Civ) 274], has since been wiped out of existence, the said decision being the law of the land when the civil appeals/special leave petitions were finally decided, the subsequent overruling of such decision and even its recall, for that matter, would not afford a ground for review within the parameters of Order 47 CPC.”
7. In that view of the matter, the review not being maintainable, it ought not to have been entertained. That apart, we notice, the two earlier bipartite agreements i.e. 08.09.1983 and 10-04-1989, were superseded by 6th bipartite agreement dated 14.02.1995 and under clause 5(c)(ii), the employee would not be eligible for stagnation
12
increment, if he, after accepting the promotion seeks and is granted, reversion after one year from the date of promotion. It is undisputed fact that the petitioner would squarely fall within the expression of this clause and even on merits the petitioner would not be entitled for stagnation increment.”
(Madhuresh Prasad, J.)
I agree.
(Prasenjit Biswas, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review lies against the Division Bench judgment dated 05.04.2024 upholding the temporary injunction order on grounds of alleged error apparent on the face of the record.
Whether a subsequent decision of the Supreme Court (Dilip Mehta) can be made a ground for review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dilip Mehta vs Rakesh Gupta and OthersReferred¶7
2025 SCC OnLine SC 2737 · Who else cites this
Board of Control for Cricket in India and Another vs. Netaji Cricket Club and OthersDistinguished¶13
2005 (4) SCC 741 · Who else cites this
Yatinder Kumar Aggarwal and Others vs. Mukund Swarup and OthersDistinguished¶17
2019 (3) SCC 687 · Who else cites this
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax OfficerRelied on¶19
(2024) 2 SCC 362 · Who else cites this
The Canara Bank & Ors. Vs. M Michael RajRelied on¶20
Civil Appeal No.11329 of 2025
State (NCT of Delhi) v. K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd.Relied on¶20
(2024) 7 SCC 315 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Samrat Samanta & Ors.
Sri Somesh Dhara & Ors.
Madhuresh Prasad
Prasenjit Biswas
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
