Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

1. The present Review Petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule I read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the judgment dated 25.08.2025 passed in WA No.1455/2020 whereby the Writ Appeal filed by the State was allowed by this Court, thereby setting aside the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the Review Petitioner was the respondent in the Writ Appeal. While allowing the Writ Appeal, this Court has passed the following order:

                  “10. Even though the respondent might have been relieved on the same day i.e. 24.11.2018, no benefit can be extended to him since the benefit is contemplated only for those persons who were in service as on the date of that order i.e. 24.11.2018 and that the respondent continued only on the basis of the said order. Therefore, he cannot claim any benefit. In any case, the term of the respondent expired on 09.11.2016. Therefore, if the term of the substantial post itself is over, the respondent could not have been continued on the additional charge. However, he continued till fresh appointments were made, in the light of the interim order passed by this Court. Be that as it may, since the new incumbent had joined and taken over charge at 10 a.m on 24.11.2018, it cannot be said that the respondent was continuing in service. The respondent was never appointed as Public Prosecutor to defend POCSO cases but was only given additional charge. Ext.P11 Government Order speaks about regular appointment of the Public Prosecutors. Moreover, while giving the respondent an additional charge of Public Prosecutor (POCSO cases), remuneration of Rs.10,000/- was fixed for discharging additional duties.

                  11. Paragraph 2(ii) of Ext.P11 Government Order dated 24.11.2018 specifically provides that the Special Public Prosecutors appointed in the courts constituted to try and decide cases under the NDPS/SC/ST/POCSO/Abkari Laws will be getting salary of Rs.60,000/- (consolidated) per month. The respondent in this case was holding the substantive post of Additional Government Pleader. Therefore, giving additional charge of Special Public Prosecutors would not amount to appointment. Learned Single Judge erred in coming to the conclusion that the respondent is a person who was in service as on 24.11.2018.

                  In view of the aforesaid, the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge deserves to be set aside and the same is accordingly set aside.

                  The writ appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.”

                  Being aggrieved, the petitioner herein filed the present Review Petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that there is an apparent error on the face of the impugned judgment and therefore, the same is liable to be reviewed. The petitioner was nonsuited on two grounds:

                  (1) The petitioner was not appointed as Special Public Prosecutor to defend POCSO cases but was only given additional charge.

                  (2) The petitioner was only holding the substantive post of Additional Government Pleader and giving additional charge of Special Public Prosecutor could not amount to an appointment. It was also held that a new incumbent joined at 10 a.m. on 24-11-2018.

                  On these grounds, the judgment passed in Writ Appeal needs to be reviewed.

4. Per contra, the learned Government Pleader opposed the prayer and submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of record so as to entertain this Review Petition. The learned counsel contended that, according to the Attendance Register filed by the Petitioner herein at Annexure A1, it can be very well seen that the petitioner had already handed over the charge in the forenoon of 24.11.2018 and also the new incumbent had taken over the charge at 10 am before noon. So far as Ext.P11 is concerned, that was issued on 24.11.2018, the petitioner had already relinquished the charge before noon. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for salary at the rate of Rs.60,000/- per month with effect from 10.11.2016 to 24.11.2018 as Special Public Prosecutor under the POCSO Act has no legs to stand and this Review Petition deserves to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties on both sides.

6. For the reasons discussed herein above, we find no error apparent on the face of record to review the order passed in the Writ Appeal.

7. In order to understand the circumstances that entitle the court to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions concerned as well as the law on the point laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court as well as this Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court is concerned.

8. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus:

                  “114. Review-

                  Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-

                  (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

                  (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or

                  (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”

9. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus:

                   “1. Application for review of judgment.

                  (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

                  (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

                  (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

                  (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.

                  (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.

                  Explanation-

                  The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.”

10. It is trite that review power under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the CPC is available to be exercised only on setting up any one of the following grounds by the petitioner;

                  (i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, or

                  (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record,or

                  (iii) any other sufficient reason.

11. In Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [(1980) 2 SCC 167], the Apex Court held that under the guise of review, a litigant cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.

12. The Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] held thus:

                  “Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.

                  (Underline supplied)

13. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534], the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on the face of record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search, and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits.

14. In Sasi (D) through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair and others [AIR 2017 SC 1432], the Apex Court held that in order to exercise the power of review, the error has to be self-evident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning.

15. In Shanthi Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board and others [(2020) 2 SCC 677], the Apex Court, by referring to Parsion Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715], held thus:

                  “The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided”.

16. Again, in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd [2024 SCC Online SC 1090], the Apex Court considered the grounds for review in detail and held thus:

                  “Order XVLII does not end with the circumstances as S.114, CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under S.114 read with Order XLVII, CPC is available to be exercised, subject to fulfilment of the above conditions, on setting up by the review petitioner any of the following grounds:

                  (i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or

                  (ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or

                  (iii) any other sufficient reason.”

17. In Sujatha Aniyeri v. Kannur University [2025 KHC Online 212], this Court, after considering the point, what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record held that review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits. If the direction in the judgment was erroneous, then the remedy was to challenge the same by filing an appeal and not by filing a review petition.

18. Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient reason to hold that the petitioner has made out any of the grounds provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the CPC to review the judgment dated 25.08.2025 passed by this Court in the Writ Appeal. The attempt of the petitioner appears to invoke the review jurisdiction as an appeal in disguise. Therefore, the review is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the review petition stands dismissed.