This single-paragraph order dismissed a review petition by holding that the scope of review is limited to rectifying errors apparent on the face of the records and does not permit explorative analysis or fresh arguments.
Review petition dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON
TUESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH 2012/16TH PHALGUNA 1933
RP.No. 83 of 2012 ()
-----------------------------AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP.35106/2002 DATED 09/12/2011
REVIEW PETITIONERS / PETITIONERS :
1. KALYANIKUTTY @ ROHINI AMMA D/O.PATTATHIL KAMALA AMMA, RAMA NILAYAM ARIYOOR THEKKUMMURI DESOM, P.O.OTTAPALAM PALAKKAD DISTRICT.
2. KRISHNANKUTTY
3. RAMADAS
BY ADVS.SRI.T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
SRI.SAJU.S.A SRI.K.C.KIRAN SMT.P.A.SHEEJA
RESPONDENTS / RESPONDENTS :
1. MUHAMMED ALIAS MANI
PALAKKAD DISTRICT-679336.
2. ABDUL NAZAR
BY ADV. SRI. SANDEEP ANKARATH
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06-03-2012, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
Mn
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, J.
R.P. No. 83 of 2012 in O.P.No.35106 of 2002
Dated this the 6th day of March, 2012
ORDER
After having lost the battle in respect of the challenge against Ext.P7 interim order passed by the Court below, raised in O.P.No.35106/2002, the petitioners are now before this Court, by
way of this review petition, through another learned counsel.
entered appearance on behalf of the review petitioners at length.. After hearing the learned counsel and also after going by the grounds raised in the review petition, this Court finds that the sum and substance of the review petition is to have a 'rehearing', as to the issue involved. It has been held by the Apex Court time and again, that the scope of review is very much limited and is only to rectify the error apparent on the face of records, and not on the basis of any explorative analysis to be undertaken
or on the basis of anything newly to be argued. Going by the verdict already passed by this Court and also the materials
R.P. No. 83 of 2012 in O.P.No.35106/2002 -2-
brought on record, this Court finds that there is no error apparent on the face of records, and as such, the review petition has necessarily to fail, in view of the law declared by the Apex Court
in Meera Bhanja V. Nirmalakumari Choudhury ( AIR 1995
SC 455) . It is ordered accordingly.
learned senior counsel for the review petitioners, it is made clear that the observations made by this Court, while declining interference with Ext.P7, will not stand in the way of the Court below in dealing with the issues involved and adjudicate the matter in accordance with the relevant provisions of law.
Review petition is dismissed.
P.R. RAMACHANDRA MENON, JUDGE.
Kp/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the review petition can be allowed on the basis of explorative analysis or newly argued grounds beyond error apparent on the face of records?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Meera Bhanja V. Nirmalakumari ChoudhuryApplied¶39
Meera Bhanja V. Nirmalakumari Choudhury ( AIR 1995 SC 455) · Who else cites this
Kalyanikutty @ Rohini Amma and others
Muhammed alias Mani and Abdul Nazar
P.R. Ramachandra Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
