G Sita Ram Chander vs Tummala Suresh Chandra Chatterjee
- Neutral2026 INSC 906
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A review petition cannot be treated as an appeal by rehearsing the entire matter and reconsidering contentions that were rejected in the original judgment; such an exercise exceeds the jurisdiction conferred by review proceedings and amounts to a misuse of review powers. Where a review order is found to have transgressed the limits of review jurisdiction and functioned as a de facto appeal, that review order and any dependent orders passed upon it must be set aside, leaving the original order intact for challenge through appropriate remedies available to the aggrieved party.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Non-Reportable
2026 INSC 906 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal Nos.10204-10214 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.9910-20 of 2025)
G. Sita Ram Chander
…. Appellant
Versus
Tummala Suresh Chandra Chatterjee
…. Respondent
ORDER
Leave granted.
2. We are called upon to consider an order passed in a batch of review petitions and a consequential judgment passed in the appeals. Admittedly, the appeals filed by the respondents were dismissed and review petitions were filed against the dismissal, which was heard by yet another learned Single Judge, and were allowed.
3. On a brief pursual of the order, we are persuaded to find that the review, in fact, was considered as an appeal.
The learned Single Judge reheard the matter, evident from the finding that the judgment under review had not considered the contentions of the review petitioners which had substantial bearing on the result of the case. The order passed is quite beyond the contours of a review jurisdiction.
4. We also notice that on the very same day of the common order in the review, a common judgment was also passed allowing the appeals, finding no reason to post the case for further hearing, since the merits were argued in the review petitions.
5. We find no reason to sustain the common order in the review petitions, and we set aside the same. The common order allowing the appeals, after the reviews were allowed, which are also impugned in the present appeals, also stands set aside as a dependent order.
6. Insofar as the original order passed in the appeals, we give liberty to the aggrieved parties, the respondents herein, to challenge the same within a period of 60 days from today, if they so desire.
7. We make it clear that we have not made any observations on the merits of the matter.
8. The appeals stand allowed only to the above extent.
9. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
.……………………………... J.
(J. B. PARDIWALA)
..………….…………………. J.
(K. VINOD CHANDRAN)
NEW DELHI;
AUGUST 05, 2026.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free