Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 2623 (KER)

M Krishnadas v. Sharaffudheen

2025-10-07

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.

body2025
ORDER : Muralee Krishna, J. The 4th respondent in W.A. No.1541 of 2025 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’, in short), seeking review of the judgment dated 10.09.2025, passed by this Court in that writ appeal. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents 1 to 3 and the learned Senior Government Pleader. 3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that while passing the judgment, this Court has not considered Ext. R4(E) judgment dated 07.09.2023 in Cont.Case (C)No. 2418 of 2022 and Ext. R4(I) final list of valid members dated 24.08.2024 issued by the District Registrar. Non- consideration of these material documents goes to the root of the membership issue. Therefore, it is highly necessary to clarify the directions regarding membership of the society by reviewing the judgment. It is also necessary to clarify that only those members included in Ext.R4(I) shall be treated as valid members, and the Deputy Director shall not recognise any person as a member unless such induction is supported by a resolution of the general body. 4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for respondents 1 to 3 submitted that apart from respondents 1 to 3, the review petitioner was also not satisfied with the order under challenge in the writ petition, and hence he filed Cont.Case (C)No.2418 of 2022. In that contempt case, it was held by the Division Bench of this Court that if the conclusion arrived at by the Deputy Director in Annexure R1(a) order therein (Ext.P16 order under challenge in W.P(C) No.5140 of 2023) is correct, it is a situation warranting an extraordinary measure. It is further held by the Division Bench that, it is open to the persons aggrieved by that order to contend that the findings rendered by the Deputy Director in the said order are incorrect and unsustainable. As the jurisdiction vested in this Court in the contempt proceedings is only to examine the question whether there is wilful disobedience of the direction issued by this Court, the Division Bench held that it may not be appropriate for this Court to examine the correctness of findings rendered in Annexure R1(a) order or take any extraordinary measure to appoint a Manager for the school. In that circumstance, the contention of the petitioner that by Ext.R4(E) judgment, this Court has granted some relief in favour of the petitioner and that was not taken into consideration by this Court while passing the impugned judgment has no merit. Similarly, the learned Senior Counsel argued that Ext.R4(I) is issued based on a resolution passed by the petitioner and others. The said order was issued on 24.08.2024, which is subsequent to Ext.P11 judgment dated 23.02.2021 in W.P.(C)No.20572 of 2017. 5. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment and this court has not decided anything on merits, in the rival claim of the parties to the writ appeal, and hence the review petition is liable to be dismissed. 6. 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 and that of 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. 7. 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.” 8. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus: “1. Application for review of judgment. 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.” 9. It is trite that the power of review 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. 10. 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. 11. 10. 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. 11. 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) 12. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on the face of the 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. 13. 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. 14. 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”. 15. Again in Govt. 15. 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 fulfillment 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.” 16. In Sujatha Aniyeri v. Kannur University [2025 KHC OnLine 212] in which one of us is a party [Muralee Krishna S., J], after considering the point, what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, this court 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. 17. In the writ petition, respondents 1 to 3 herein challenged Ext.P16 order dated 27.01.2023 issued by the Deputy Director of General Education. By finding that the said order was issued without complying the directions of this Court in Exts.P11 and P13 judgments dated 23.02.2021 in W.P.(C)No.20572 of 2017 and 14.07.2022 in W.A.No.716 of 2022, this Court allowed W.A.No.1541 of 2025. The operative portion of that judgment read thus: “In the result, the writ appeal is allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 29.05.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.5140 of 2023 and the writ petition is disposed of directing the 2 nd respondent Deputy Director to comply with the directions contained in Exts.P11 and P13 judgments in the manner indicated therein. We make it clear that if necessary, the 2 nd respondent shall call for the records from the office of the concerned Registrar, as well as such other documents that could be called for by him which are necessary for complying with the directions in the judgments referred to above. We make it clear that if necessary, the 2 nd respondent shall call for the records from the office of the concerned Registrar, as well as such other documents that could be called for by him which are necessary for complying with the directions in the judgments referred to above. In terms of the above directions, the fresh orders have to be passed by the 2 nd respondent as expeditiously as possible, at any rate within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment”. 18. Now the petitioner contends that while passing that judgment, Ext.R4(E) judgment of this Court in the contempt of court case filed by the petitioner and Ext.R4(I) final list of members approved by the District Registrar were not considered by this Court. But while going through Ext.R4(E) judgment, we notice that the Division Bench of this Court did not consider the rival contentions of the parties on merits in that judgment. The Division Bench held that it may not be appropriate for this Court to examine the correctness of the findings rendered in Ext.P16 order. Similarly, as rightly argued by the learned Senior Counsel, Ext.R4(I) list of members approved by the District Registrar is also subsequent to Ext.P11 judgment. While allowing the writ appeal, this Court left the matter to be decided by the Deputy Director by complying with the directions contained in Exts.P11 and P13 judgments in the manner indicated therein. Nothing has been stated in the judgment about the merit of the contentions raised by the parties before the Deputy Director. In such circumstances, we find no ground to say that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment which warrants interference by exercising review jurisdiction. In the result, the review petition stands dismissed.