Madhya Pradesh High Court: a review petition is not a second appeal, only errors apparent on record can be corrected

A writ petitioner's son, who ran a licensed liquor shop, alleged that an Excise Assistant Commissioner had extorted money from him over several months and threatened to falsely implicate him, and that he died by suicide after recording a video statement. A single judge directed that the investigation be handed over to the CBI. A review of the resulting writ appeal order was sought by the petitioner against certain findings recorded against him. Justices Sandeep N. Bhatt and Jai Kumar Pillai of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, Indore Bench, restated the settled scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, drawing on Supreme Court authorities including Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi and State of West Bengal v. Kamal Sengupta: review lies only for discovery of new and important evidence that could not earlier be produced despite due diligence, a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record, or another sufficient reason analogous to these, and an error apparent must be self-evident, not one requiring a process of reasoning to detect.

A review court cannot re-appreciate evidence, take a different view on a point on which two views are possible, or function as an appeal in disguise. Finding that the petitioner was, in substance, asking the Court to rehear the merits rather than pointing to any self-evident error, the Court dismissed the review petition. As a High Court ruling, it binds courts within Madhya Pradesh.