IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No.60 of 2022 Jyoti Sankar Panda &. Petitioner Represented by Adv.3 Mr. Devashis Panda, Advocate -Versus- Jyotirmayee Dash &. Opposite Party Represented by Adv.3 Mr. Sidhartha Das, Advocate CORAM: HON9 BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON9BLE MISS JUSTICE SAVITRI RATHO Order No. ORDER 20.03.2026 11. 1. At the very outset, we must recapitulate the scope and the jurisdiction exercised by the Court while entertaining an application for review. It admits no ambiguity in perceiving the law in relation to a review jurisdiction that the review petition should not be treated and/or be used as a tool and be substituted as an appeal in disguise. The Court shall not reopen all the issues decided by the Court while delivering the judgment/order nor should hover around the voluminous papers in order to ascertain what would be logically deduced therefrom. The review jurisdiction cannot be expanded even for revisitation, reconsideration and rewriting of the judgments but must travel within the strict parameters set forth under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 2. We are conscious that if the order/judgment contains an error apparent on the face of the record, it would immediately invite the attention of the Court and in the event, if it is so, the Court must review its judgment/order. Apart from the statutory recognition of powers of review, it is founded upon the sound legal principles that the act of the Court shall not cause any prejudice to the litigants. The aforesaid notion is founded upon the legal maxim <actus curie neminem gravabit=. 3. We are taken to various portions of the depositions of the witnesses, who adduced the evidence in the trial Court in pursuit of branding the judgment, which suffers from the vices of the parent error. It is sought to be contended that if there is a disparity in the deposition recorded at the time of examination-in-chief and the cross-examination, the Court should not have relied upon the same. The review is based upon the evidentiary affect and the values of the deposition of the wife and the authority of the college who was called as a witness by the Court. According to Mr. Devasish Panda, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, the wife stood firm in her evidence that she is unemployed. On the other hand, the official of the college in the examination-in-chief stated that she has been appointed as a lecturer in Mathematics but further stated in the examination-in-chief that she is appointed as a contractual employee getting an honorarium/stipend of Rs.7425/-. According to learned counsel, the Court while awarding permanent alimony under the provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act, should have taken into consideration the factum of employment of the wife in the college and it is inconceivable and improbable that the lecturer of the college would get a paltry sum of Rs.7425/-. He arduously submits that the Odisha Education (Recruitment and Conditions of Service of Teachers and Member of the Staff of Aided Educational Institutions) Rules, 1974 postulates that every employee of an aided educational institution shall draw the same pay, the dearness allowance (DA) and subsistence allowance in case of suspension as admissible to the counter part in the Government Educational Institutions. Drawing an inspiration from the said provision, learned counsel would submit that the evidence adduced by the wife as well as the officer of the college, is not worthy to be taken into consideration and the Court ought to have correctly assessed, the said evidence, while jumping to the conclusion. This establishes that the permanent alimony awarded by the trial Court is improper and the enhancement of the alimony by the appellate Court is also illegal and improper. 4. The entire argument, in our opinion, travels around the circumference of surmises and conjectures. Once the Court after taking into consideration the evidences adduced by the respective parties, has upon appraisal of the same, interpreted and arrived at the conclusion, it hardly opens the door to discard such finding unless the same is irrational, unreasonable, unfathomable and against the settled principles of law. If the evidence is capable of being interpreted in more than one way and if one is adopted by the Court, even if it appears to the Court higher in hierarchy that the other interpretation would have been more appropriate and/or proper, it does not invite the interference unless the exception carved out in this regard in the judicial parlance is eminently present and proved. There is no fetter nor the Courts are deterred to apply a robust common sense in judicial dispensation and the assimilation of the facts and the evidence so adduced, lead to a reasonable conclusion, the same is an exposition, which seldom needs interference. The Court while delivering the judgment which is sought to be reviewed enhanced the permanent alimony from Rs.40 lakh to Rs.48 lakhs bearing in mind the various factors and arriving at the decision that the wife being aged 35 years and getting the maintenance of Rs.15,000/- per month, the quantum of the permanent alimony awarded by the trial Court does not appear to be proper. The Court also took into consideration the evidence adduced by both the parties and the income which they derive from their avocation and if such finding cannot be said to be per verse nor diametrically opposite to what can be seen from a bare look of the evidence, we do not find that the review jurisdiction is a proper remedy available to the petitioner. A distinction has to be borne in mind between an erroneous decision and a decision tainted with the vice of a patent error. The said distinction is real though at times gets blurred but that does not put any fetter on the part of the Court to remove the chaff from the grain and find out the real intention therefrom. Erroneous decision is amenable and capable to be corrected and/or interfered by a higher forum but the judgment which suffers from an error on the face of the record can be reviewed by the Court who delivered the parent judgment. The error apparent on the face of the record should not be confused with every error required to be ascertained either by drawing a logical inference or logically discernible or by going into the voluminous papers. If the Court finds that the error is to be found out by way of an inference to be drawn from the documents, it does not partake the character of an error apparent on the face of the record. The error must be patent which can be easily gathered from a bare look of the record and what ought to have been interpreted on the assimilation of the evidences adduced by the parties should be avoided and/or guarded against. If the Court has arrived at the positive finding from the evidence and enhanced the permanent alimony, we don9t find that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. 5. The reliance on the Rules as aforesaid has no manner of application in the present case as the civil proceedings are decided on the basis of evidence or on perceived presumption but once the evidence is categorical, expressive and explicit, it hardly invites any further inference to be drawn while exercising the jurisdiction of review. Furthermore, the judgment sought to be reviewed was assailed before the apex Court in the Special Leave Petition, the apex Court declined to interfere with the said judgment but since the liberty was given to the petitioner to explore the remedy of review, it does not create any inchoate right in getting a review in his favour. The liberty to approach the Court under the review jurisdiction does not absolve the Court to decide the review on the legal parameters and, since we did not find any error apparent on the face of the record, the review is liable to be dismissed. The same is hereby dismissed. Rejection of the review application shall not prevent the petitioner from exhausting the remedy as permissible in law. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (Savitri Ratho) Judge S.K. Jena/Sr. Secy. Digitally Signed Signed by: SANJAY KUMAR JENA Designation: Asst. Registrar-cum-Sr. Secretary Reason: Authentication Location: High Court of Orissa, Cuttack. Date: 20-Apr-2026 18:13:18