IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK RVWPET No. 211 of 2024 Sachidananda Patra …. Petitioner -versus- Indumati Patra …. Opposite Party Advocates appeared in this case: For Petitioner : Mr. Sachidananda Patra- In Person For Opposite Party : None CORAM: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HON’BLE MR JUSTICE MRUGANKA SEKHAR SAHOO J U D G M E N T ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date of Hearing and Judgment: 20th March, 2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- HARISH TANDON, CJ. 1. A belligerent litigant, who is appearing in person, by taking shelter under the provision of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 seeking review of the judgment and order dated 25th June, 2024 passed by this Court in MATA No. 3 of 2022, whereby and whereunder the judgment and decree of the trial Court was affirmed. 2. The instant review application is taken out on the premise that the Court neither considered some portion of the evidence nor has correctly appreciated such evidence while affirming the judgment of the trial Court. 3. In course of the hearing, the petitioner submits that his wife (opposite party herein) has admitted in the cross-examination that she has not filed any complaint against the brothers of the petitioner, which does not appear to be a truthful and/or reliable piece of evidence. According to him, the documents which he filed through memo would shatter such deposition and, therefore, there is an error in the judgment rendered by this Court while dismissing the appeal and affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court. 4. The genesis of the litigation can be traced from the fact that because of the matrimonial discord between the petitioner and the opposite party dispute arose and the petitioner perceived the circumstances as cruelty perpetrated upon him. 5. We find from the categorical findings returned in the judgment delivered by this Court that the petitioner has admitted that the petition for dissolution of marriage is primarily founded upon the ground of cruelty and cruelty cannot be defined and/or squeezed within the limited parameters. It has variety of circumstances depending upon various factors and the circumstances in one case may not constitute cruelty which in another case may invite the same. 6. Once the parties have deposed in the matter by leading evidence in support of their respective stands, the Court shall decide the matter on the issues framed in this regard and on the basis of the evidence adduced by the parties. The trial Court is a Court of fact and law and has decided the matter upon taking into consideration the evidentiary values of the materials produced before it. The First Appellate Court is equally responsible for dealing with such aspects. Once the First Appellate Court did not find any infirmity and/or illegality in the judgment of the trial Court and affirmed the same, the review jurisdiction becomes limited and must be decided within the parameters set forth in Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. Page 4 of 6 7. It admits no ambiguity in law that the review jurisdiction is not akin to an original jurisdiction or a jurisdiction where the case would have second lease of life in parties addressing the issues and arguing the matter afresh. The review jurisdiction can never be used as a tool for re-visitation and/or reconsideration of the case, but should be decided within the strict parameters of the grounds enumerated under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. 8. The review application filed by the petitioner does not appear to have been filed on the ground of discovery of new and important document, which despite due diligence was not within the knowledge of the petitioner, but is primarily founded upon the ground that the impugned judgment suffers a patent error, which can be discerned from the record. 9. A distinction has to be borne in mind between an order which is erroneous and an order which contains an error apparent on the face of the record. In the former case, it is open to the litigant to move higher up to get the said judgment interfered with but in the latter case, such erroneous judgment is not susceptible and/or amenable to be taken up again under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. Page 5 of 6 The error apparent on the face of the record must be understood in the context of such error, which on a bare look, could be found but not an error which has to be deciphered from the logical inference or the judicial interpretation and traveling within the voluminous documents. 10. The moment the error is to be found hovering over the voluminous documents and perceived on the basis of the logical inference, the same would not come within the parameter of error apparent on the face of the record. The moment the Court found that both the Courts have considered the matter in extenso and took into considerations the evidence adduced by the parties in pursuit of determining the ground of cruelty, it is not open to the Court to interfere with the said order exercising the power of review by permitting the parties to argue afresh. 11. We are conscious that if a document, which forms part of the record, has been ignored and/or overlooked while passing the judgment, it may invite the error appearing from the record, provided such document would impact the decision to be taken by the Court. The tenet of the instant review application does not instill any confidence in us that the impugned judgment suffers from the vices of the error apparent on the face of the record but the petitioner appears to have been beleaguered between the erroneous judgment and the judgment that suffers patent error. 12. We, thus, do not find any grounds warranting interference with the impugned judgment in exercise of our power of review emanating from Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC. 13. The review application is accordingly dismissed but in the circumstances with no order as to costs. (Harish Tandon) Chief Justice (M.S. Sahoo) Judge S. Behera Designation: Senior Stenographer