APHC010495192025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3458] THURSDAY, THE THIRTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SMT JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA WRIT PETITION NO: 25267/2025 Between: Svr College Of Nursing ...PETITIONER AND The State Of Ap and Others ...RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. SRI VIJAY MATHUKUMILLI Counsel for the Respondent(S): 1. GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH FW 2. Tata Venkata Sridevi,Standing Counsel For Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences The Court made the following Order: I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2025 In/and W.P.No.25267 of 2025 Heard the submissions of Sri Kochiri Raja Shekar, learned counsel for the review applicant, Sri Vijay Mathukumilli, learned counsel for the respondent No.1, the learned Assistant Government Pleader for Medical 2 Health FW and Smt. T. V. Sridevi, learned Standing Counsel for Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences appearing for the respondents. 2. Instant applications have been filed seeking leave to file a review application and seeking review of the order in W.P.No.25267 of 2025 dated 08.10.2025, contending that the review applicants is a necessary party to the writ petition and the writ petition was filed without making the review applicant a party respondent to the writ petition. 3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the review applicant that any order passed pursuant to the order under review will have a bearing on the representations filed by the review applicants, pending before the authorities for consideration. 4. It is contended that aggrieved by the respondents' inaction in considering the representations filed by it, the review applicants filed W.P.No.25691 of 2024. The learned counsel further argues it that unless the submissions of the review applicants are taken into consideration in the writ petition 25267 of 2025, any order that would be passed in W.P.No.25691 of 2024 will affect the consequential proceedings that would be passed pursuant to the disposal of the Writ Petition under review i.e., W.P.No.25267 of 2025. Thus, it seeks leave to file review petition. 5. In my considered view, the contention of the petitioner does not merit consideration as the proceedings under challenge in the writ petition were 11.09.2025 passed by the – respondent contending that before passing the impugned order, the writ petitioners were not provided an opportunity to 3 present their objections thus causing prejudice to their rights, therefore the respondents were directed to pass appropriate orders after considering the objections of the writ petitioner. The writ petitioner has contended that the respondents have issued impugned proceedings based on the complaint made by the review applicant herein. 6. The essence of the impugned order in the writ petition was that the writ petitioner was considered ineligible to run the B.Sc Nursing course in the absence of proper clinical facilities. It was alleged that the impugned order in the writ petition was passed based on a complaint filed by the review applicant herein, who had informed the authorities that no student from SVR College of Nursing (the writ petitioner's college) had ever attended Amelio Hospital, the review applicant no.2 herein, for clinical training. Based on the complaint lodged by the review applicant, the writ petitioners were found ineligible to conduct B.Sc. Nursing programs. On the challenge made to the said order contending that the order was passed unilaterally without hearing the writ petitioners, this Court directed the respondents to hear the petitioners and pass appropriate orders. 7. It is relevant to extract the relevant provisions of Order XLVII of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. <1. Application for review of judgment.—(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved4 (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or 4 (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applied for the review. 1[Explanation.4The 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.] 8. The grounds on which the review application can be considered would be: A. a discovery of new and important matter or evidence which after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made. or B. Mistake apparent from record. C. or any other for sufficient reason. 1 5 9. Unless the case falls any of the above clauses review application is not maintainable. 10. In the facts of the case the review applicant’s case would not fall under Ground No. A (referred supra). Ground No.B: An error which is sought to be established by long drawn process of reasoning is not an error apparent on the face of record. 11. Reliance is placed on the decision of the Apex court in the case of Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others2, the Supreme Court, while considering the scope of Order 47, Rule 1 C.P.C., held as follows: “Under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 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 the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on the face of the record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". Ground No.C: An application for review is also maintainable if a sufficient reason is made out. 2 (1997) 8 SCC 715 6 12. In the backdrop of the above-mentioned factual aspects, this court is of the view that the review applicants have not made out sufficient reasons for review of the order dated 08-10-2025 in W.P.No.25267 of 2025. 13. In view of the foregoing, I.A.Nos.2 & 3 of 2025 are dismissed. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall also stand closed. ______________________________ JUSTICE KIRANMAYEE MANDAVA Dated: 13.11.2025 MSI