RSA Review Application: Limited Scope of Review After Dismissal of Second Appeal. A review application for a Regular Second Appeal (RSA) in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908.

A recent judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court explains the limited scope of a review application filed after dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal (RSA). The Court reiterated that review jurisdiction cannot be used as a second opportunity to rehear the appeal or substitute another possible view for the one already taken.

Key Aspects of an RSA Review Application

RSA Review Application-Background

The review application arose out of RSA No. 2204 of 2006, which had already been dismissed by the High Court through judgment dated 12 February 2026.

The review applicant argued that there was an error apparent on the face of the record because certain judgments relied upon by counsel for the respondent had not been cited in the earlier judgment.

The State opposed the review application, submitting that failure to cite a particular judgment does not automatically constitute a ground for review.

The Main Legal Issue

The central issue was:

Can a party seek review of an RSA judgment merely because certain judgments or arguments were not specifically referred to in the original decision?

The High Court answered the issue by reiterating the established limitations governing review jurisdiction.

Review Is Not an Appeal in Disguise

The Court relied upon Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, as well as subsequent decisions, to summarise the grounds on which review jurisdiction may be exercised.

A review may be maintainable where there is:

1. Discovery of new and important matter or evidence, subject to the requirement of due diligence;
2. Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
3. Any other sufficient reason, understood as a ground analogous to the above categories.

However, review jurisdiction cannot be used merely because the applicant believes that the earlier judgment was wrong.

The Court specifically reiterated that a patent error, and not merely an allegedly erroneous decision, is required. If the matter has to be reheard and reconsidered before the alleged error can be established, the exercise would effectively become an appeal rather than a review.

What Is an “Error Apparent on the Face of the Record”?

The judgment makes an important distinction between an apparent error and an error that requires detailed reasoning to establish.

An error apparent must be self-evident and manifest from the record. An error which can only be discovered after a lengthy process of reasoning or by adopting one of two possible interpretations does not ordinarily qualify as an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court also relied upon Sanjay Kumar Agarwal v. State Tax Officer, reiterating that review cannot be sought merely for rehearing and fresh adjudication of the case.

Failure to Refer to a Judgment Does Not Automatically Justify Review

In the present matter, the applicant essentially relied upon the fact that certain judgments referred to by the respondent’s counsel had not been cited in the earlier judgment.

The High Court did not treat this circumstance, by itself, as establishing an error apparent on the face of the record.

The Court found that the review application was effectively seeking a rehearing of the RSA, which is impermissible within the limited jurisdiction of review.

Supreme Court’s Recent Clarification in Malleeswari

The High Court also referred to the Supreme Court’s recent judgment in Malleeswari v. K. Suguna, reported as 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1927.

The principles reiterated there include:

• Review is not an appellate proceeding.
• The review Court does not sit in appeal over its own judgment.
• A rehearing of the case is impermissible.
• Review is intended for correction of an apparent mistake, not substitution of one judicial view for another.
• Review jurisdiction is exercised within the confines of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
• The power is particularly concerned with preventing miscarriage of justice or correcting grave and palpable errors.

The judgment further explains that an apparent error should be capable of being identified at first blush, without undertaking detailed reasoning to establish that an error exists.

Also Read-Adverse Possession RSA in Chandigarh HighCourt

Order 47 Rule 1 CPC

The High Court reproduced the relevant framework under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, under which review may be sought on grounds including:

• discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the applicant’s knowledge or could not be produced earlier;
• mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
• any other sufficient reason.

Thus, a review application is not an opportunity to introduce a new line of arguments or obtain reconsideration of the entire case.

Review of RSA: Practical Understanding

The judgment can be understood through the following distinction:

Review Application	Appeal
Corrects an apparent error	Re-examines correctness of decision
Limited statutory jurisdiction	Wider appellate jurisdiction
No rehearing of the entire case	Reconsideration may be undertaken within appellate scope
Requires recognised review ground	Challenges findings/legal conclusions
Cannot substitute one possible view for another	Appellate Court may examine competing views

The review Court therefore does not function as an additional appellate forum merely because a litigant remains dissatisfied with the outcome.

Final Decision

The High Court concluded that no mistake apparent on the face of the record was demonstrated in the judgment dated 12 February 2026.

Consequently, the review application was dismissed.

Key Legal Takeaways

1. Review after dismissal of an RSA is extremely limited.
2. A review is not a rehearing of the RSA.
3. An error apparent on the face of the record must be patent and self-evident.
4. An error requiring extensive reasoning or reconsideration of evidence generally falls outside review jurisdiction.
5. Failure to refer to a particular judgment or argument does not automatically establish an error apparent.
6. Review cannot be used to obtain substitution of one judicial view for another.
7. Discovery of new evidence is a review ground only when the applicant establishes that, despite due diligence, it was not within their knowledge or could not earlier be produced.
8. If the applicant’s case requires the Court to rehear the matter and reconsider the merits, the proceeding effectively becomes an appeal in disguise.

Also Read-Will Dispute in Chandigarh HighCourt RSA (Appeal)

Conclusion

The judgment reinforces the fundamental principle that finality of judicial decisions cannot be disturbed merely because a litigant seeks another opportunity to argue the case.

For an RSA review application, the focus must remain on whether there is a legally recognised ground for review—particularly a patent error apparent on the face of the record, genuinely new material despite due diligence, or an analogous sufficient reason.

A review petition should therefore identify the specific apparent error rather than simply reproduce the arguments already advanced and decided in the RSA.

By Satish Mishra, Advocate (99888-17966)