BONTHA KONDA SARVESWARA RAO v. DUSI SIVA PRASADA RAO

Counsel for the Respondent(S):

#1. V SURENDRA REDDY Date on which order was reserved Date on which order was pronounced : :

07.11.2025

21.11.2025 Date on which the judgment was uploaded :

22.11.2025 The Court made the following: The petitioners in C.R.P.No.2266 of 2024 filed the above interlocutory application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘C.P.C.’) to review the order, dated

10.12.2024.

#2. For brevity, the parties to the review are referred to as ‘landlords’ and ‘tenants’.

#3. The landlords filed A.T.C.No.4 of 2012 under Section 13(a) of the Andhra Pradesh (Andhra Area) Tenancy Act, 1956 (for short ‘the Act’), on the file of learned Principal Junior Civil Judge –cum- Special officer, Srikakulam (Tenancy Act), seeking eviction of tenants on the ground that they became defaulters, as per orders in A.T.C.No.10 of 1994, confirmed in A.T.A.No.1 of 2000 and C.R.P.No.5770 of 2005. The said A.T.C.No.4 of 2012 was allowed on 20.07.2018. Aggrieved by the said order, the tenants filed A.T.A.No.3 of 2018 on the file of the Judge, Family Court - III - Additional District and Sessions Court –cum- Appellate Authority of Andhra Tenancy Act, Srikakulam. The appeal was dismissed on 01.07.2024. Aggrieved by the said orders, the tenants filed the above civil revision petition. By order, dated

10.12.2024, this Court dismissed the civil revision petition with costs quantified at Rs.25,000/-, payable to the landlords.

#4. Contending that an error apparent on the face of the record occurred and that this Court failed to consider all the grounds raised by the revision petitioners, while disposing C.R.P.No.2266 of 2024, the present review was filed.

#5. The review was initially listed on 29.01.2025. Thereafter listed on,

19.02.2025, 05.03.2025, 19.03.2025, 02.04.2025, 09.04.2025, 23.04.2025,

30.04.2025, 07.05.2025, 04.09.2025, 19.09.2025, 17.10.2025, 31.10.2025 and 07.11.2025. Except on 19.03.2025, on all other occasions, the review petition was adjourned at the request of learned counsel for the petitioners on one ground or the other.

#6. On 31.10.2025, this Court, while adjourning the review petition, made it clear that if the learned counsel for the petitioners fails to proceed further, the Court will pass appropriate orders. Thereafter, learned Senior Counsel advanced arguments on 07.11.2025.

#7. Heard Sri S.S.Prasad, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri S.N. Chidambara Sastry, learned counsel for the petitioners.

#8. Learned Senior Counsel would contend that some of the grounds raised in C.R.P.No.2266 of 2024 and the arguments advanced were not considered, while dismissing the civil revision petition on 10.12.2024. Hence, the order dated 10.12.2024 requires a review.

#9. Before proceeding further, let this Court examine the scope of review under Order XLVII Rule1 read with Section 114 of C.P.C.

#10. In Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, Anantapur1, the Hon’ble Apex Court, while considering the scope of review, observed as under: “What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an “error, apparent on the face of the record”. The fact that on the earlier occasion the court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong it would not follow that it was an “error apparent on the face of the record”, for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by “error apparent”. A review is by no means an 1 AIR 1964 SC 1372 appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.”

#11. The above proposition of law was reiterated in Parsion Devi & Others v. Sumitri Devi & Others2. In Board of Control for Cricket in India & another v. Netaji Cricket

#12. Club & Others3

#89. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code provides for filing an application for review. Such an application for review would be maintainable not only upon discovery of a new and important piece of evidence or when there exists an error apparent on the face of the record but also if the same is necessitated on account of some mistake or for any other sufficient reason.

#90. Thus, a mistake on the part of the court which would include a mistake in the nature of the undertaking may also call for a review of the order. An application for review would also be maintainable if there exists sufficient reason therefor. What would constitute sufficient reason would depend on the facts and circumstances of the case. The words “sufficient reason” in Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code are wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law by a court or even an advocate. An application for review may be necessitated by way of invoking the doctrine “actus curiae neminem gravabit”.

#13. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others4, the Hon’ble Apex Court considered the aspect of review and observed at para Nos.19 and 20:

#19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In a