APHC010128332025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the twenty ninth day of August, two thousand and twenty five The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi Civil Revision Petition No.686 of 2025 Between: P.Rajesh @ Rakesh and Others and P.Sreenivasulu Setty Counsel for the petitioners: 1. Y. V. S. S. Dharaneesh Counsel for the respondent: 1. Mahadeva Kanthrigala The Court made the following: IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) Friday, the twenty ninth day of August, two thousand and twenty five Present The Honourable Ms. Justice B. S. Bhanumathi I.A.No.2 of 2025 In Revision Petition No.686 of 2025 P.Rajesh @ Rakesh and Others ...Petitioners ...Respondent Counsel for the petitioners: Dharaneesh Counsel for the respondent: Mahadeva Kanthrigala made the following: [3311] Friday, the twenty ninth day of August, two thousand and twenty five ...Petitioners ...Respondent 2 BSB, J I.A.No.2 of 2025 in C.R.P.No.686 of 2025 ORDER: This petition under Section 114 read with Order XLVII, Rule 1 C.P.C., is filed seeking review of the order, dated 02.05.2025, of this Court passed in C.R.P.No.686 of 2025. 2. In a suit filed by the plaintiffs for perpetual injunction, an application in I.A.No.605 of 2022 was filed by the defendant for appointment of an advocate commissioner to note down the physical features and take measurements of the petition schedule property with the help of municipal licenced surveyor as per the registered partition deed, dated 29.02.2008. The trial Court allowed the petition and appointed an advocate as commissioner to note down the physical features and take measurements of the petition schedule property with the help of a municipal licenced surveyor as per the registered partition deed, dated 29.02.2008, and directed the commissioner to submit a report on or before 03.03.2025. 3. Aggrieved by the order, a revision petition vide C.R.P.No.686 of 2025 was filed by the plaintiffs. 4. After hearing both the parties, the revision petition was dismissed. 5. The revision petitioners contended that appointment of commissioner is not required because the relief in the suit is for perpetual injunction and that the trial Court illegally passed a cryptic order without any necessity for appointment of a commissioner. 6. On the other hand, the respondent / defendant contended that the father of the revision petitioners allegedly executed the gift deed showing the measurements of the property more than what he got in the partition, and therefore, the measurements are required. In that context, 3 BSB, J I.A.No.2 of 2025 in C.R.P.No.686 of 2025 this Court passed the order sought to be reviewed, the relevant portion of which reads as below: “The suit is filed for permanent injunction against the defendant by restraining him from alienating or creating any encumbrances in favour of third parties in respect of the plaint schedule property. Of course, on a peripheral reading of the relief, no purpose of appointment of commissioner is apparent. However, to prove the defence taken in the written statement, it is necessary to measure the land as per the documents. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to interfere with the impugned order. In the result, the petition is dismissed.…” 7. Now, the petitioners in I.A.No.2 of 2025 seek review of the above order on the following grounds:- (a) The impugned order suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record; (b) The appointment of an advocate commissioner at the very threshold without adducing the oral and documentary evidence is nothing but gathering of evidence; (c) In spite of the absence of specific pleadings and reasons from the respondent, the impugned order was passed; (d) When there is no ambiguity with regard to the identity of the property, appointment of advocate commissioner is a futile exercise; 4 BSB, J I.A.No.2 of 2025 in C.R.P.No.686 of 2025 8. The learned counsel for the review petitioners reiterated the contentions as in the grounds. 9. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent / defendant contended that there is no ground permissible to review the order passed and that this court cannot deal with the impugned order like in an appeal. 10. In the decision in S. Murali Sundaram Vs. Jothibai Kannan and Ors. 1 , after considering catena of decisions on exercise of review powers and principles relating to exercise of review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 C.P.C. the Supreme Court had summed up as under:- “(i) Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. (ii) Power of review may be exercised when some mistake or error apparent on the face of record is found. But error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably by two opinions. (iii) Power of review may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. (iv) Power of review can also be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. (v) An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine actus curiae neminem gravabit.” 1 2023 (2) ALD 68 (SC) 5 BSB, J I.A.No.2 of 2025 in C.R.P.No.686 of 2025 It was further observed in the aforesaid decision that an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record. In the case of Shanti Conductors (P) Ltd. and Ors. Vs. Assam State Electricity Board and Ors.2, it was observed and held that scope of review under Order XLVII, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 114 Code of Civil Procedure is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-agitate and reargue questions which have already been addressed and decided. It was further observed that 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 under Order XLVII, Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. 11. Further, in the decision in S.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs. V. Narayana Reddy and others3, the scope of ‘review’ has been dealt with in detail. Paragraph Nos.14 & 15 as follows: “14. In Col. Avatar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Ors. [1980 Supp SCC 562], this Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order, would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as under: ‘12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any 2 Neutral Citation: 2019 INSC 1397 3 [2022] 11 S.C.R 42 6 BSB, J I.A.No.2 of 2025 in C.R.P.No.686 of 2025 feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante and Anr. v. Sheikh Habib [(1975) 1 SCC 674], this Court observed: ‘A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. ...’ The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order, which has the normal feature of finality. …’ (emphasis added) 15. In Parsion Devi and Ors. v. Sumitri Devi and Ors. [(1997) 8 SCC 715], stating that an error that is not self- evident and the one that has to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review, this Court held as under: 7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P. [1964 SCR (5) 174] this Court opined: ‘11. What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an 'error apparent on the face of the record'. The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court 7 BSB, J I.A.No.2 of 2025 in C.R.P.No.686 of 2025 held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an 'error apparent on the face of the record', for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by 'error apparent'. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.’ 8. Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [(1995) 1 SCC 170] while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma [(1979) 4 SCC 389], this Court once again held that 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 Code of Civil Procedure. 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure 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 Code of Civil Procedure. In exercise of this jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure it is not permissible for an erroneous decision 8 BSB, J I.A.No.2 of 2025 in C.R.P.No.686 of 2025 to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'.[emphasis added]” 12. When the grounds raised in the petition are considered in the light of the principles discussed in the above cases with regard to the scope of the review of an order already passed, it is very clear that the petitioners failed to raise any ground for review, such as error apparent on record, but want this Court again to examine the same contentions which were already answered. 13. None of the grounds raised by the petitioners fall under the scope of authority under Order XLVII, Rule 1 C.P.C. and on the other hand, they are like the grounds usually raised in an appeal against an order or judgment under challenge. Like in a fresh hearing of a matter or a hearing of an appeal, under the guise of review, the order passed cannot be interfered by the same Court by re-appreciation of the same subject. Therefore, this Court does not see any reason to review the order impugned in this petition. 14. In the result, I.A.No.2 of 2025 is dismissed. ___________________ B.S. BHANUMATHI, J Dt.29.08.2025 RAR