The principle of finality in judicial proceedings is indispensable for the rule of law. Courts must balance two competing interests: the need to correct errors to ensure justice, and the need to prevent endless litigation by maintaining finality in decisions. The power of review under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), reflects this delicate balance.
In the landmark decision of Malleeswari v. K. Suguna & Anr. (Civil Appeal No. 12787 of 2025, decided on September 8, 2025), the Supreme Court of India emphatically restated the scope of review jurisdiction. It held that review is corrective in nature, not substitutive, and must not be misused as a disguised appeal. The Court clarified that review can correct an error apparent on the face of the record but cannot be invoked to re-hear the matter or replace one view with another.
Factual Background
The Partition Suit (2000–2003)
The dispute began when Subramani, the son of Munusamy Naidu, filed a partition suit (OS No. 192 of 2000) in the District Munsiff’s Court at Ponneri. He sought partition of ancestral properties into two equal shares between himself and his father. Notably, Malleeswari, daughter of Munusamy Naidu, was not impleaded as a party.
On 25 February 2003, the Trial Court passed an ex parte preliminary decree, granting the reliefs sought.
Subsequent Property Transactions (2004–2008)
- In December 2004, Munusamy Naidu sold certain items of the property to K. Suguna (the first respondent) and executed a settlement deed in favour of his daughter Malleeswari for the remaining items.
- In 2008, he executed a Will bequeathing his share to Malleeswari.
- He died in 2011, after which Malleeswari was impleaded as his legal heir.
Impact of the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005
The Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005 (HSA 2005) conferred coparcenary rights on daughters by birth. Malleeswari, as a living daughter of a living coparcener when the amendment came into force, claimed entitlement to a 1/3rd share in the property.
She argued that:
- The sale in 2004 was invalid as it violated the court’s injunction.
- By virtue of the Will, her father’s share also devolved upon her, making her entitlement 2/3rd of the property.
Trial Court Proceedings (2018–2019)
In 2018, Malleeswari filed an application to amend the preliminary decree, claiming her coparcenary rights.
On 8 March 2019, the Trial Court dismissed the application, holding that:
- She was impleaded only as her father’s legal representative and not in her independent capacity.
- The 2005 amendment could not apply retroactively.
- The sale deed was valid and binding, particularly as she had attested it.
- A preliminary decree is final regarding the determination of shares and can only be amended for clerical errors, not substantive changes.
High Court Intervention (2022–2024)
- In 2022, the Madras High Court (CRP No. 1439 of 2019) allowed her revision, relying on Vineeta Sharma v. Rakesh Sharma (2020) 9 SCC 1, and held that she was entitled to a 1/3rd share.
- However, in 2024, on review application No. 227 of 2023 filed by the respondent, the High Court reversed its earlier order and remanded the case to the Trial Court for fresh consideration, permitting respondents to raise defenses regarding the ancestral nature of property.
This review order was challenged before the Supreme Court.
Issues Before the Supreme Court
- What is the scope of review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC?
- Did the High Court exceed its jurisdiction by effectively substituting its earlier findings with new ones during review?
- Whether the review order amounted to an appellate re-examination rather than a correction of error?
Court’s Analysis
Distinction Between Review and Appeal
The Supreme Court began by clarifying the fundamental difference between appellate and review jurisdiction:
- Appellate Power: Permits re-hearing, reappreciation of evidence, and substitution of findings.
- Review Power: Confined to correction of errors apparent on the face of the record; does not allow rehearing.
Citing established precedents, the Court held:
“Review is not to be confused with appellate powers… A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.”
“The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view.”
Limitations of Review Jurisdiction
The Court restated the principles governing review:
- Discovery of new evidence – Only if despite due diligence, such evidence was not available earlier.
- Error apparent on the face of record – The error must be self-evident and not require elaborate reasoning or debate (Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque, AIR 1955 SC 1104).
- Other sufficient reason – Reasons analogous to the above categories (Chhajju Ram v. Neki, 1922 SCC OnLine PC 11).
Errors that require detailed examination or involve two possible opinions cannot qualify as review grounds.
The High Court’s Overreach
The Supreme Court noted that the High Court in review:
- Allowed respondents to question the ancestral nature of property, a defence not available to pendente lite transferees.
- Permitted defences contrary to the original suit structure.
- Effectively reversed its earlier findings, amounting to an appellate reappreciation.
This, according to the Court, exceeded review jurisdiction.
Decision of the Supreme Court
- The Supreme Court held that the High Court’s review order was unsustainable, as it substituted findings rather than correcting an error.
- Accordingly, the Court set aside the review order (19 October 2024) and restored the High Court’s earlier order dated 23 September 2022, which had recognised Malleeswari’s share.
- The Trial Court was directed to expeditiously dispose of pending applications within three months.
Significance of the Judgment
- Reinforcement of Judicial Discipline: The decision reiterates that review is a limited remedy. Courts cannot reopen and rehear cases under the guise of review. This preserves the finality of litigation, a cornerstone of justice delivery.
- Protection of Women’s Coparcenary Rights: By restoring the High Court’s 2022 order, the Supreme Court indirectly upheld the recognition of daughters as equal coparceners under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The ruling safeguards women’s inheritance rights from being diluted by procedural missteps.
- Prevention of Abuse of Review Petitions: The judgment warns against the misuse of review as a backdoor appeal. If parties are permitted to re-litigate issues endlessly, judicial efficiency and certainty collapse.
- Clarification of Legal Principles: The Court’s reliance on long-standing precedents—Meera Bhanja, Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma, Parison Devi, Lily Thomas, Inderchand Jain, Shivdev Singh—provides a consolidated reference point for future cases on review jurisdiction.
Broader Implications
- For Litigants: Review is not an opportunity to reopen the case; it can be invoked only for patent mistakes.
- For Trial Courts: Preliminary decrees in partition suits are final as to rights, and amendments cannot be sought decades later except for clerical errors.
- For Appellate Courts: The boundary between appellate and review jurisdiction must be respected to maintain judicial discipline.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s decision in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna is more than a technical ruling on review jurisdiction—it is a reminder of the discipline that sustains judicial credibility. If review petitions are allowed to become substitutes for appeals, the certainty of law would collapse into perpetual doubt. By drawing a firm line, the Court has reaffirmed that review is meant only to rectify glaring mistakes, not to re-argue cases or reopen settled rights.
At the same time, the judgment carries a progressive undertone by ensuring that a daughter’s rightful claim under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, is not lost in procedural entanglements. It demonstrates how strict adherence to procedural discipline can still secure substantive justice.
Ultimately, the ruling reinforces the notion that finality and fairness are not in conflict, but rather complementary pillars of justice—finality provides stability, while review ensures fairness by correcting errors when necessary. This balance is the true essence of judicial review under the CPC.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams