The Supreme Court in Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati summarised the principles to be followed for entertaining review petitions. As per that case, review will be maintainable when there is:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason – which has been interpreted to mean a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to the principles mentioned above.
It was further held in that case:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled arguments is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications;
(ii) Review is not maintainable when there are minor mistakes of inconsequential import;
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case;
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.
Source: Barandbench
