Kerala HC explains What is an error apparent on the face of record

It needs no repetition that a judgmental error is not a review able error, nor can it be termed an error on the face of record. Error in reasoning or, for that matter, in applying law to facts is an appeal able error. And that power of appeal is the creation of a statute. An error apparent on the face of record, on the other hand, an error that strikes one “on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two ”

The Courts have considered on numerous occasions what an error apparent on the face of record is. In Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Malikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumule⁵ the Supreme Court has held thus:

“An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior Court to issue such a writ.”

No error can be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it is not manifest or self-evident and requires an examination or argument to establish it. But there might be cases in which it may not work because an error of law might be considered by one Judge as apparent, patent, and self- evident; but might not be so considered by another Judge. Therefore, we ought to conclude that the legal contours of an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be exactly identified. In other words, an element of indefiniteness is inherent in its very nature and must be left to be determined judicially on the facts of each case.