Dismissed

C.C.Antony v. Jaison P.C

Kerala HC9 Feb 2018RP/82/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CrPC was dismissed. The High Court held that there were no mistake apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment and the review jurisdiction is limited, prohibiting the court from substituting its view or treating the petition as an appeal.

What did the court decide?

The review petition was dismissed as there were no grounds to review the judgment dated 3.1.2018.

C.C.Antony Vs Jaison P.C — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Kerala HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

¶2

PRESENT:

¶3

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

¶4

FRIDAY, THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2018 / 20TH MAGHA, 1939

¶5

RP.No. 82 of 2018

¶6

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 69/2018 of THIS HON'BLE COURT . ----------

¶7

REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/3RD PARTY ------------------------------

¶8

C.C.ANTONY, CHIRANGARA ILLICKAL HOUSE,MERLIN GUARDAN,NADATHARA.P.O, THRISSUR DISTRICT-680751.

¶9

BY ADV.SRI.V.C.MADHAVANKUTTY

¶10

RESPONDENT(S)/WRIT PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3:

¶11

1. JAISON P.C,

¶12

PRESIDENT,NADATHARA FARMERS SERVICE CO-OPERATIVE BANK

¶13

NO.3499,NADATHARA.P.O,POOCHATTI,THRISSUR DISTRICT-680751.

¶14

2. THE STATE CO-OPERATIVE ELECTION COMMISSION,

¶15

THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001.

¶16

3. THE JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

¶17

SOCIETIES(GENERAL),THRISSUR-680001.

¶18

4. THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE

¶19

SOCIETIES(GENERAL),THRISSUR-680001.

¶20

R1 BY SRI.M.SASINDRAN

¶21

R2 TO R4 BY SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER SMT.C.S.SHEEJA

¶22

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 09-02-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

¶24

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, J.

¶25

R.P.No.82 of 2018 in

¶26

W.P(C) No.69 of 2018

¶27

Dated this the 9^th day of February, 2018

¶28

J U D G M E N T

¶29

The petitioner, who is a third party to W.P(C) No.69/2018, has filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking an order to review the judgment of this Court dated 3.1.2018 in W.P(C) No.69/2018, contending that there is error apparent on the face of the record, warranting review of that judgment.

¶30

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent (writ petitioner) and also the learned Senior Government Pleader for respondents 2 to 4.

¶31

W.P(C) No.69/2018 was one filed by the 1^st respondent herein, who is the President of Nadathara Farmers' Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the 2^nd respondent Election Commission to appoint a Returning Officer and Electoral

¶32

R.P.No.82 of 2018

¶33

Officer for conducting election to the Managing Committee of the said Society on 11.2.2018. The said writ petition was disposed of by the judgment dated 3.1.2018 by directing the Election Commission to take necessary steps in terms of the request made in Ext.P1 for the conduct of election to the Managing Committee of the said Society, on 11.2.2018.

¶34

The term of the present Managing Committee will expire on 17.2.2018. On 7.12.2017, the Managing Committee of the Society resolved to conduct election on 11.2.2018 and the same was forwarded to the 2^nd respondent, vide Ext.P1 request dated 12.12.2017. The pendency of W.P(C) No.42156/2017 filed by the petitioner and another seeking removal of certain members from the membership list of the Society is not a valid ground to seek review of the judgment of this Court dated 3.1.2018 in W.P(C) No.69/2018, under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code.

¶35

In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi (1997 (8) SCC

¶36

715) the Apex Court, in the context of the power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 held that, 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

¶37

R.P.No.82 of 2018

¶38

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 XLVII Rule 1 of the Code. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be 'an appeal in disguise'. Later, in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (2006 (3) SCC 224) the Apex Court reiterated that, the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise. The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review.

¶39

In Anantha Reddy N. v. Anshu Kathuria (2013 (15) SCC 534) the Apex Court held that, the review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on 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.

¶40

R.P.No.82 of 2018

¶41

In view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, the review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code is very limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record, the judgment does not call for review. Further, whilst exercising such power of review, the court cannot be oblivious of the provisions contained in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code and that the limits within which the courts can exercise the power of review have been well settled in a catena of decisions.

¶42

Viewed in the light of the law laid down in the decisions referred to supra, I find absolutely no grounds to review the judgment dated 3.1.2018 in W.P(C) No.69/2018. The review petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed.

¶43

ANIL K. NARENDRAN JUDGE

¶44

C.C.Antony v. Jaison P.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

C.C.Antony v. Jaison P.C

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishnakumar Vs Murukan

Musthafa P K Vs Additional Licensing Authority-Mananthavadi

Abdul Azeez P.H. Vs Kunnathunadu Taluk Primary Cooperative Agricultural and

Drisya Vs the State of Kerala

Treesa John Vs Special Secretary Co. Operative Department

R.P.Sivadas Vs the Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (General)