SC Clarifies Limits of Review Jurisdiction: Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another (2025)

On September 8, 2025, the Supreme Court of India issued a crucial verdict in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another, reaffirming the limited scope of review jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC). The Bench, consisting of Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah and Justice SVN Bhatti, underscored that a review petition cannot serve as a disguised appeal, thereby reaffirming the idea of finality in judicial decisions. This case has considerable implications for succession law, review proceedings, and judicial discipline.

Distinction Between Review Petition and Appeal

• The Court emphasised the essential difference between a review petition and an appeal:

Petition for Review

• Limited objective of rectifying patent errors or evaluating newly discovered material evidence.
• Designed to guarantee justice in instances where an error apparent on the face of the record has occurred.

Appeal

• A significant remedy that allows for a thorough reevaluation of facts, evidence, and law by an appellate court.
• Expansive in scope, encompassing the rehearing and reexamination of the matter.
• The Court warned that merging the two would undermine judicial efficiency, prolong the process of justice, and jeopardise the finality of judgments.

Basis for Review according to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code

• The Supreme Court reiterated the three specific grounds for invoking review jurisdiction:

Discovery of Significant and Important Evidence

• Evidence must be substantial and relevant.
• It ought not to have been accessible notwithstanding the appropriate attention exercised at the time of the original judgment.

Manifest Error on the Record

• The error should be apparent and not necessitate elaborate reasoning.
• Incorrect reasoning on merits cannot be linked with such an error.

Any Additional Adequate Reason

• Interpreted narrowly, it must be analogous to the initial two grounds.
• Cannot serve as a universal license for case reopening.

Case Details: Partition and Succession Rights

• 2000: A partition lawsuit initiated by a son against his father. The daughter was not included as a party.
• 2003: Preliminary decree issued ex parte.
• In 2004, the father transferred property to a third party and allocated a portion to his daughter.
• In 2008, the father executed a will in favour of his daughter.
• 2011: Following the father’s demise, the daughter was designated as the legal heir.
• 2013: Buyer included in legal proceedings.
• In 2018, the daughter pursued an amendment under the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005, to assert coparcenary rights.

The Progression of Lower Courts

• The Trial Court (2019) rejected her suit, stating it was not retrospective.
• The High Court (2022) granted coparcenary powers to the daughter.
• High Court Review (2024): Remanded the case to the trial court, so overturning its previous decision.
• Supreme Court (2025): Overturned review order, reinstating High Court’s 2022 decision.

Ruling of the Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court determined that the High Court had overstepped its jurisdiction under Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC by reassessing facts and reversing its previous findings, thereby exercising appellate authority.

Principal observations

• Regarding Jurisdictional Limits: “Review proceedings do not constitute an appeal and must be strictly limited to the parameters of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.”
• On High Court’s Error: The High Court erroneously reevaluated evidence and substantive matters instead of recognising an error apparent on the face of the record.
• On Partition and Succession Rights: The Supreme Court reinstated the daughter’s coparcenary rights pursuant to the 2005 Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, thereby promoting gender equality in inheritance legislation.

Final Instructions

• Reinstated the High Court 2022 ruling, acknowledging the daughter’s coparcenary rights.
• Instructed the trial court to adjudicate any pending applications within three months.

Review Jurisdiction of Civil Courts: Broader Legal Context

• The review jurisdiction is an exceptional authority to be utilised judiciously. Judicial bodies have consistently warned against its improper application:
• Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2000): Review jurisdiction is distinct from an appeal and cannot be utilised to reexamine the merits.
• Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati (2013): A review is admissible solely in the presence of an apparent error, the discovery of fresh evidence, or an analogous substantial reason.
• Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi (1980): Review is not a rehearing of the matter but a correction of grave and palpable mistakes.
• Consequently, the Supreme Court in Malleeswari conformed to previous precedents.

Judicial Implications of the Verdict

• Strengthens Judicial Discipline
• Prevents courts from blurring lines between review and appeal.
• Clarifies the CPC Application
• Litigants are advised that review does not replace appellate remedies.
• Influence on Partition and Succession Matters
• Affirms the rights of daughters as coparceners pursuant to the 2005 Amendment.
• Advances gender equity in property law.
• Directions for High Courts
• Establishes a precedent to guarantee judicial restraint in review cases.

Consequences in the Global Society

• Most legal systems worldwide acknowledge the significance of the finality of judgments.
• The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure in the United States permit review under Rule 60 solely for clerical errors, newly discovered evidence, or fraud, mirroring India’s limited methodology.
• The idea of res judicata in the United Kingdom prohibits perpetual litigation, permitting a review just in extreme cases of fraud or miscarriage of justice.
• The ICJ (International Court of Justice) allows a review of verdicts solely based on newly discovered evidence.
• By reiterating restricted review powers, India conforms to worldwide best practices regarding judicial efficiency and certainty.

Legal Representation

• For the Petitioner (Daughter): Senior Advocate V. Prabhakar, accompanied by Advocates E.R. Sumathy, Jyoti Parasher, and Harmeet Kaur.
• For the Respondents: Advocates Shobha Ramamoorthy, Shilp Vinod, Gokulakrisnan, Avinash Ranjan, G. Sivabalamurugan, Selvaraj Mahendran, C. Adhikesavan, Harikrishnan P.V., Dhass Prathap Singh, C. Kavin Ananth, and Vibha Srivastava.

Final Assessment

• The Supreme Court’s decision in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna and Another (2025) reasserts the restricted nature of review jurisdiction and the idea that review is not a disguised appeal.
• By nullifying the High Court’s overreaching decision, the Court maintained judicial discipline, defended the finality of judgments, and concurrently promoted gender equality in inheritance law.
• The decision serves as a cautionary precedent for plaintiffs and practitioners: review petitions must adhere carefully to Order 47 Rule 1 CPC and cannot be employed to reopen or extend litigation.
• By doing so, the Supreme Court has enhanced judicial efficiency and reinforced constitutional norms of fairness.

Sharing is caring!