APHC010523412025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3397] MONDAY,THE TWENTY SEVENTH DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY SIX PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE VENUTHURUMALLI GOPALA KRISHNA RAO I.A.No.1 of 2026 (REVIEW PETITION) IN TRANS. CIVIL MISC.PETITION NO: 317/2025 Between: Noorjahan Begum ...PETITIONER AND Shaik Khamarjahan Begum ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. P RAVIKANTH Counsel for the Respondent: 1. YENNAM SUDHEER BABU The Court made the following: THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO I.A.No.1 of 2026 (REVIEW PETITION) IN TRANSFER CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS PETITION No.317 of 2025 ORDER: The petitioner herein filed the present Review Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking to review the order dated 21.11.2025 passed by this Court in Tr.C.M.P.No.317 of 2025. 2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed Tr.C.M.P.No.317 of 2025 with a prayer to withdraw the suit in O.S.No.1481 of 2025, on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada, and transfer the same to the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, to try along with O.S.No.58 of 2024, pending before the said learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali. On hearing both sides, this Court dismissed the Tr.C.M.P.No.317 of 2025 on merits, against which the present review petition vide I.A.No.1 of 2026, is filed by the petitioner to review the order dated 21.11.2025 passed in Tr.C.M.P.No.317 of 2025. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the Court has erroneously come to a conclusion that the cause of action arose in both the suits are different. The petitioner pleaded that in fact the reliefs sought by the parties in both the suits stems from the same case of action, that the same are common ancestral properties and were mutually distributed between them, but the said distribution is not being honoured. The petitioner would further contend that this Court ought to have considered the fact that the petitioner is an old lady, being a resident of Guntur, is facing great difficulty and hardship to travel to Vijayawada and to Tenali on each and every adjournment to attend the Court and that the petitioner is constrained to file the present review petition to review the order dated 21.11.2025 passed by this Court in Tr.C.M.P.No.317 of 2025. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondent would contend that the suit in O.S.No.58 of 2024, on the file of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, is filed against the petitioner herein for seeking relief of partition of the suit schedule property into two equal shares and the suit schedule property in the said suit is located at Tenali in Guntur District. The petitioner herein engaged an advocate and is contesting the matter, wherein the trial has already been commenced and the respondent has already filed her evidence in the form of chief affidavit in the Court on 15.09.2025 along with the petition to receive the additional documents on her behalf. The respondent would contend that at this stage, the respondent received suit summons in O.S.No.1481 of 2025, on the file of the II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada, which is posted for first adjournment for hearing on 20.11.2025 and the suit schedule properties in both the suits are different and the cause of action arose in both the suits are also different. The respondent further contended that on hearing learned counsel appearing for both sides, this Court had rightly dismissed the transfer civil miscellaneous petition and that the review petition filed by the petitioner may be dismissed. 5. The material on record reveals that after filing of the transfer civil miscellaneous petition and after hearing both sides, this Court dismissed the transfer civil miscellaneous petition on merits, against which the petitioner filed the present petition to review the said order dated 21.11.2025 passed by this Court in Tr.C.M.P.No.317 of 2025. The legal position in this regard is no more res integra and the same is well settled by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments. In a case of Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd vs Lt. Governor Of Delhi1, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held as follows: “14. plea for review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. A review in counsel's mention cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace.” 6. In a case of Lily Thomas, Etc. Etc. vs Union Of India & Ors 2, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held As follows: “the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review.” 7. In the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that the petitioner has discovered any new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence was not within her knowledge or could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of passing the orders. All pleas raised before the Court were in fact addressed for and on behalf of the petitioner before the Bench. After considering those pleas, this Court had passed the order. The error contemplated under the Rule must be such which is apparent on the face of 1 1980 (2) SCC 167 2 (2000) 6 SCC 224 the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It is essential that it should be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. The real difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the statement of principle as in its application to the facts of a particular case. 8. In a case S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs V. Narayana Reddy 3, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that “the Court cannot arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are possible. Under the garb of filing a review petition, a party cannot be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening the conclusions arrived at in a judgment”. 9. In a case of State of Telangana vs Mohd. Abdul Qasim (Died) per Lrs.,4 the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterated that “a decision, however erroneous, can never be a factor for review, but can only be corrected in appeal. Such a mistake or error should be self-evident on the face of record. The error should be grave enough to be identified on a mere cursory look, and an omission so glaring that it requires interference in the form of a review”. 10. The law is well settled in Kamlesh Verma Vs Mayawati and Others 5, after discussing various decisions in the scope of review jurisdiction, the Hon'ble Apex Court summarized the principles for exercise of the review jurisdiction also laying down that when the review would be maintainable and when not. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs Mayawati and Others supra held as under: 3 SCC Online SC 1034 4 2024 SCC Online SC 540 5 (2013) 8 SCC 320 20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1 When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the Petitioner or could not be produced by him;Court Judgement Alerts (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in (1922) ILR 3 LAH 127 (Privy Council) and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Another Vs. The Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India (UOI) Vs. Sandur Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. and Others. 20.2 When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. 11. As seen from the material on record, it is evident that the petitioner herein filed a civil suit in O.S.No.355 of 2015 before the learned VIII Additional District Judge, Vijayawada, against the respondent herein seeking for relief of permanent injunction and partition of some items of immovable property and after conclusion of trial, the said suit was preliminarily decreed on 29.12.2023 in part, but the petitioner did not take any steps to add the suit schedule property situated at Tenali in the said suit. It is also evident that the respondent herein filed a Civil Suit in O.S.No.58 of 2024, before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tenali, against the petitioner for seeking relief of partition of the suit schedule property and the said suit schedule property is situated at Tenali. The petitioner herein has engaged an advocate and contesting the matter and the trial has been commenced and the respondent filed his evidence affidavit as P.W.1 along with a petition to receive the documents. The respondent herein received suit summons in O.S.No.1481 of 2025, from the learned II Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division), Vijayawada. The relief sought in O.S.No.1481 of 2025, is for cancellation of registered gift settlement deed dated 14.03.2006, obtained on the plea of fraud and misrepresentation at Vijayawada and the schedule property in the said suit is situated at Kondapally, at Vijayawada. Therefore, it is evident that both the schedule properties are situated at different places and the cause of action arose in both the suits are different and the nature of the properties are also different. This Court by narrating the reasons, dismissed the transfer petition vide its order dated 21.11.2025. The averments in the affidavit of the petitioner in the review petition are in fact itself evident that he is travelling beyond the scope of review jurisdiction and the petitioner is trying to re-argue the matter which was decided by this Court on merits. 12. With respect to the scope of review, it has repeatedly been held that in the exercise of review jurisdiction, neither the Court can sit in appeal nor it is open for the review petitioner to re-agitate and re-argue the questions which had already been addressed and decided by this Court. It is not permissible to allow the review petition to be re-heard and decided as an appeal in disguise. The present review petition is an effort in the nature of a second commencement of re-hearing of the petition which is impermissible. For the aforesaid reasons, the order under review does not suffer from any apparent error of law and no case for review is made out. 13. Resultantly, the review petition vide I.A.No.1 of 2026 in Tr.C.M.P.No.317 of 2025 is dismissed. _______________________________ JUSTICE V.GOPALA KRISHNA RAO Date: 27.04.2026 SRT