IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR REVIEW) NO. 402 of 2026 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION/270/2025 ================================================================ EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION & ORS. Versus SHINGAR LIMITED ================================================================ Appearance: MR AV NAIR(5602) for the Applicant(s) No. 1,2,3 MR DIPAK R DAVE(1232) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================ CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK Date : 10/02/2026 ORAL ORDER 1. Present application is led by the applicants under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for review of the order dated 28.11.2025 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No. 270 of 2025. 2. Heard Mr. A.V. Nair, learned counsel appearing for the applicants and Mr. Dipak R. Dave, learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 3. Learned counsel Mr. Nair has submitted that on account of certain factual and legal errors apparent on the part of the earlier advocate representing the petitioner-department, who had not produced relevant documents, the present application is led seeking review of the order passed by this Court. He has submitted that the department had not properly instructed the learned advocate representing its case and at the time of deciding the main petition, p. 2 relevant documents were not produced before this Court and therefore, learned counsel Mr. Nair has urged that this Court may review / recall the order dated 28.11.2025 passed in Special Civil Application No. 270 of 2025 and adjudicate the main petition on merits. 4. Per contra, learned counsel Mr. Dipak R. Dave, appearing for the respondent has opposed the present application and submitted that the present application for review / recall is not maintainable and there is no error committed by this Court in passing the impugned order. He has submitted that the Court has considered the submissions of both the sides, and after considering the facts of the case and after perusing the order passed by the concerned authority, the Court has decided the main petition and thus, there is no any error or any illegality committed by this Court while passing the impugned order and therefore, the present application be dismissed. In support of his submissions, learned counsel Mr. Dave has referred and relied upon the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati & Ors., reported in AIR 2013 SC 3301. 5. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the respective parties and perused the material placed on record. The scope and ambit of review as provided under Order 41, Rule 1 of CPC, now it is well settled that if, there is an error apparent on the face of the record committed by the Court, under such circumstances, the review application can be entertained and power is exercised by the Court to correct any mistake committed by the Court. In the case on hand, it is not a case where the Court has committed any error while passing the impugned order. The impugned order was passed on the basis of the p. 3 documents which were produced on record. 5.1 At this stage, it would be appropriate to refer to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court rendered in case of S. Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V. Narayana Reddy and Others, reported in [2022] 17 SCC 255, wherein, it has been observed and held in paragraph 33 as under : Head Note A. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Or.47 R.1 – Review – Scope of Erroneous decision distinguished from error apparent on face of record – Law clari/ed - Held, court’s jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal – A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on face of record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on face of record for court to exercise its powers of review under Or.47 R.1 - In guise of exercising powers of review, court can correct a mistake but not substitute view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter - A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of judgment, subject to condition that such evidence was not within knowledge of party seeking review or could not be produced by it when order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence - There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision and an error apparent on face of record - An erroneous decision can be corrected by superior court, however an error apparent on face of record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction - Words and Phrases – "Error apparent on the face of the record" Head Note D. Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Or.47 R.1-Successive review petitions - Maintainability on ground of producing "genuine" documents and not new documents - Held, not maintainable as producing genuine document is not discovery of new document - No error apparent on face of record - Filing of successive review petitions amounts to abuse of process of law The issues for determination before the Supreme Court were: (1) Whether the High Court ought to have entertained successive review p. 4 petitions 3led by the respondents when they could not demonstrate emergence of any new facts or point out any error apparent on the face of the record? (2) What is the court's jurisdiction of review? Allowing the appeals the Supreme Court Held: It has been consistently held by the Supreme Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court's jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the superior court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing a judgment has been described as "for any other su8cient reason". The said phrase has been explained to mean "a reason su8cient on grounds, at least analogous to those speci3ed in the rule". 33. As can be seen from the above exposition of law, it has been consistently held by this Court in several judicial pronouncements that the Court’s jurisdiction of review, is not the same as that of an appeal. A judgment can be open to review if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, but an error that has to be detected by a process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise its powers of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In the guise of exercising powers of review, the Court can correct a mistake but not substitute the view taken earlier merely because there is a possibility of taking two views in a matter. A judgment may also be open to review when any new or important matter of evidence has emerged after passing of the judgment, subject to the condition that such evidence was not within the knowledge of the party seeking review or could not be produced by it when the order was made despite undertaking an exercise p. 5 of due diligence. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision as against an error apparent on the face of the record. An erroneous decision can be corrected by the Superior Court, however an error apparent on the face of the record can only be corrected by exercising review jurisdiction. Yet another circumstance referred to in Order 47 Rule 1 for reviewing a judgment has been described as “for any other su8cient reason”. The said phrase has been explained to mean “a reason su8cient on grounds, at least analogous to those speci3ed in the rule” (Refer: Chajju Ram v. Neki Ram17 and Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and Anr. v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others18).” 6. In overall view of the matter, this Court is not inclined to entertained the present application and the same is required to be dismissed and accordingly, the present application is hereby dismissed. (HEMANT M. PRACHCHHAK,J) Dolly