The High Court of Kerala considered a review petition challenging an order in an original civil petition. The court held that the petition's grounds did not satisfy the limited grounds for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, as they amounted to an impermissible appeal in disguise. The petition was dismissed.
The Review Petition is deemed to be 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 K.HARILAL
TUESDAY, THE 18TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2016/26TH ASWINA, 1938 RP.NO. 882 OF 2016 () IN OP(C).710/2016 -----------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 710/2016 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 23-06-2016
REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS:
1. LILLY, AGED 58 YEARS, W/O.PHILIP, KULATHIKOMBIL, PULLAMBADA MURI, PALLIPPAD VILLAGE.
2. JINCY, AGED 38 YEARS, S/O.PHILIP -DO- -DO-
3. LEENA, AGED 36 YEARS, D/O.LILLY OF -DO- -DO-
BY ADV. SRI.K.SUBASH CHANDRA BOSE
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
VARGHESE, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O.GEORGE, J.J.VILLA, KULATHIKOMBIL, PULLAMBADA MURI, PALLIPPAD VILLAGE.
BY SRI.T.MADHU
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 18-10-2016, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
DST
K. HARILAL, J.
- - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dated this the 18th day of October, 2016
O R D E R
The scope and extent of consideration in a
Review Petition is confined to a specific grounds enumerated under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the C.P.C.). I have meticulously examined the grounds raised in this Review Petition and found that none of the grounds raised in this Review Petition falls under the specific grounds enumerated
under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the C.P.C. The cumulative effect that can be drawn from the grounds and submission made at the Bar by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the findings are wrong and unsustainable under law. But, the findings
R.P. No. 882 of 2016 in O.P.(C) No.710 of 2016
-: 2 :-
which are sought to be reviewed are consciously made
by this Court, after analysing the facts and relevant law. So, this Review is an appeal in disguise. This Court is of the opinion that if the Judge, who rendered the judgment, himself, sits in appeal, under the guise of review, it will be prejudicial to the Review Petitioner and may cause
more harm to him and it is impermissible under law. This Court is reminded of the principle that an act of the court shall prejudice to no one.
overruled argument is not enough to reopen a concluded adjudication. Though, the learned counsel for the petitioner cited certain decisions, which could not be produced at the time of hearing the Original Petition(Civil), this Court is not inclined
R.P. No. 882 of 2016 in O.P.(C) No.710 of 2016
-: 3 :-
to consider those decisions in this Review Petition.
The review petition fails.
This Review Petition is devoid of merits and
dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
K. HARILAL,
JUDGE
DST
//True copy//
P.A. To Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition can succeed when the grounds raised amount to a repetition of the old argument and challenge the correctness of the court's own finding.
Whether a review petition that functions as an appeal in disguise falls within the scope of review permissible under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
LILLY
JINCY
LEENA
VARGHESE
K. HARILAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
