“Review Is Not an Appeal in Disguise”: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Revision Plea Challenging Rejection of Review in ₹13.45 Crore Civil Suit
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Amaravati, Single Bench, of Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao, dismissed a civil revision petition challenging the rejection of a review application. The review petition, filed by the 1st defendant in a civil suit decreed for over Rs. 13.45 crore, sought to stay the judgment and execution proceedings. The Court affirmed the trial court's discretion to reject the review application prior to its numbering under Rule 4 of Order 47 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), observing that the grounds raised failed to establish an error apparent on the face of the record.
The 1st respondent, acting as the plaintiff, filed a suit seeking compensation amounting to Rs. 13,45,17,354 along with further reliefs for installation costs, damages, and a mandatory injunction. The claims included demands for borewell and municipal water supply, lift facilities, removal of obstructions to septic tanks, removal of illegal constructions, and the acquisition of legal documents and occupancy certificates from the Ongole Municipal Corporation and the fire department. The suit was registered as O.S. No. 284 of 2014 before the VIII Additional District Judge, Prakasam at Ongole.
The trial court partly decreed the suit, directing the 1st defendant to pay Rs. 13,45,17,354 with future interest at 12% per annum from the date of filing and 6% per annum from the date of decree until realisation, along with an additional Rs. 13,97,756.
Subsequently, the 1st defendant filed an application, CFR 5826 of 2024 under Order 41 Rule 5 CPC, seeking a stay of judgment and decree dated 30.09.2024 and the connected execution petition (E.P. No. 61 of 2024). Concurrently, CFR 5825 of 2024 was filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Sections 114 and 151 CPC to review the judgment.
The trial court dismissed the stay application and declined to number the review petition, stating that it was not maintainable, citing Apex Court decisions. The rejection was challenged in Civil Revision Petition No. 232 of 2025.
The petitioner argued that the trial court failed to evaluate the review petition on merits and erroneously dismissed it at the threshold without sufficient reasoning. The petitioner cited Parison Devi and Others v. Sumitri Devi and Others [(1997) 8 SCC 715], and BCCI and Others v. Netaji Cricket Club and Others [AIR 2005 SC 592], asserting the maintainability of review petitions under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. Additional reliance was placed on Raja Ratan Gopal Sainehar (died) by LRs [2008 (1) ALT 623].
In defence, counsel for the 1st respondent/plaintiff referred to Order 47 Rule 4 CPC, arguing that the court could reject a review petition before numbering if insufficient grounds existed. The counsel cited Maji Mohan Kanwar v. The State [AIR 1967 Rajasthan 264] and S. Murali Sundaram v. Jyothibai Kannan and Others [(2023) 13 SCC 515] to support this proposition.
Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao noted, "According to Rule 4 of Order 47 of the CPC, the Court can reject an application filed for review if there are insufficient grounds, even prior to assigning it a number."
The Court found no merit in the revision petitioner's claim that the trial court erred in dismissing the application without addressing its content. The learned Judge held that the trial court had assigned valid reasoning.
"The learned trial Court Judge while rejecting the application after quoting the judgments of the apex court has observed neither of the grounds raised in the review application would reflect the grounds enumerated under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC," the judgment recorded.
The Court recited the three grounds for maintainability of review petitions: (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) any other sufficient reason.
It further elaborated, "A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error."
Analysing the review grounds, the Court stated, "The review grounds are nothing short of written arguments in the main suit... There is no specific ground regarding miscarriage of justice or discovered important evidence."
On the procedural aspect, the judgment clarified, "An inference can be drawn that an application was filed mechanically with the aim of delaying the execution proceedings."
The Court dismissed the Civil Revision Petition, stating: "Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed, however, without costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioner: Parimi Rama Rayudu
For the Respondent(s): Dalapathi Rao Rajesh
Case Title: Balina Srimannarayana v. M/s Srr Hospitalities Private Limited and Others
Neutral Citation: APHC010043682025
Case Number: Civil Revision Petition No. 232 of 2025
Bench: Justice Tarlada Rajasekhar Rao
[Read/Download order]
