Civil Procedure Law

Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati

(2013) 8 SCC 320

Facts

The Supreme Court had earlier delivered judgment in proceedings concerning allegations and investigation relating to Mayawati.
Kamlesh Verma, who had participated or intervened in the earlier proceedings, filed a review petition.
The petitioner attempted to:
Re-argue conclusions already considered;
Rely on material or formulations that could have been presented earlier;
Challenge the correctness of the judgment; and
Obtain reconsideration similar to an appeal.
The Court examined the limits of review under:
Article 137 of the Constitution;
Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC principles; and
Supreme Court Rules.
It used the case to consolidate when review is maintainable and when it is not.

Review may be entertained where:
New and important matter or evidence:
Existed at the time;
Could not be produced despite due diligence; and
Is materially capable of affecting the result.
There is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.
Another sufficient reason exists analogous to the recognised grounds.
Review may also correct:
Patent procedural mistake;
Manifest injustice from an obvious oversight;
Failure to consider binding law brought to the court’s attention; or
A clear inconsistency requiring no elaborate argument.
Review is not maintainable where:
The petitioner merely repeats old arguments.
A different view is possible.
The decision is alleged to be legally incorrect but the error requires detailed debate.
Material could have been produced earlier with reasonable diligence.
The petitioner seeks rehearing on merits.
A later judgment takes a different view.
The review is used as an appeal in disguise.
An “error apparent” must be self-evident and not one discovered through a long reasoning process.

The petitioner did not identify a simple and patent error visible from the judgment itself.
The submissions required the Court to:
Revisit the factual record;
Reassess earlier arguments;
Compare alternative legal interpretations; and
Decide whether the original Bench should have reached another conclusion.
That is appellate reconsideration, not review.
The alleged new material was not shown to satisfy due diligence.
A party cannot withhold arguments or documents and later characterise them as newly discovered merely because the judgment was adverse.
Nor did disagreement with the Court’s reasoning become an error apparent.
The Court emphasised finality:
Litigation must end after a reasoned judgment;
Review is an exceptional correction mechanism;
It cannot provide repeated opportunities to persuade the same court.
The petition therefore failed every recognised category.
By consolidating positive and negative grounds, the judgment gave lower courts a structured checklist for review applications.

The Supreme Court dismissed the review petition.
It held that no new evidence, apparent error or analogous sufficient reason had been established.
The judgment remains a leading synthesis of permissible and impermissible review grounds.
Use this case for: Review corrects patent and exceptional error; it does not permit rehearing or a second opinion on the merits.