This judgment dismisses a review petition challenging a previous order regarding a property injunction suit. The court held that the petition lacked merits as it did not demonstrate discovery of new evidence or a patent error on the face of the record, noting review is not an appeal in disguise.
The Review Petition is dismissed for lack of merit and statutory grounds.
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. BABU
MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022 / 14TH AGRAHAYANA, 1944
RP NO. 687 OF 2022
AGAINST THE ORDER/JUDGMENT IN RSA 73/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:
1 OMANA, AGED 74 YEARS, W/O.LATE ARIMPUR CHACKO, KAIRKKAD VILLAGE, PERIMPILAVU DESOM, TALAPPILLY THALUK. 2 A.C.DAVID, AGED 53 YEARS, S/O.OMANA, ARIMPUR, KARIKKAD VILLAGE, PERIMPILAVU DESOM, TALAPPILLY THALUK. BY ADV OMANA (PARTY-IN-PERSON) A.C.DAVID(PARTY-IN-PERSON)
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT:
REJI KURIAN, S/O.LATE M.I.KURIAN, MANANTHAN HOUSE, CHALISSERI ANGADI, KAVUKODE AMSOM, KAVUKODE DESOM, OTTAPPALAM THALUK-679 536. BY ADV. REKHA,GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 05.12.2022, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
R.P.No. 687 of 2022
2
K.BABU, J.
Review Petition No. 687 of 2022
in R.S.A No.73 of 2015
Dated this the 5th day of December, 2022
O R D E R
This Review Petition is filed for reviewing the judgment
passed by this Court on 07.04.2022 in R.S.A No.73 of 2015.
'B' schedule way. The Review Petitioners/defendants pleaded that
R.P.No. 687 of 2022
3
they have right over the 'B' schedule way. The Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants challenged the decree before the First Appellate Court, which confirmed the findings of the Trial Court. This Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal holding that the impugned judgment requires no interference.
R.P.No. 687 of 2022
4
him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason.
on the scope of review of judgment, the Apex Court held thus:
“A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility.... The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality.”
8. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [(1995) 1
SCC 170] the Apex Court held that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Court held that error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an
R.P.No. 687 of 2022
5
error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the
provisions of law.
Court held that such error is an error which is a patent error and
not a mere wrong decision.
SC 233) it was held that it is essential that it should be something
more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record.
“10........In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Learned Counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review Petitioner to argue on a question of
R.P.No. 687 of 2022
6
appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise.”
be permitted to repeat old and overruled arguments for reopening
the conclusions arrived at in a judgment. The power of review is
not to be confused with the appellate power, which enables the
Superior Court to correct errors committed by a subordinate Court
(Vide: Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co.Ltd [(2006) 5 SCC 501].
Others (MANU/SC/1013/2022), the Apex Court narrated the situations in which review will not be maintainable, which read thus:
R.P.No. 687 of 2022
7
and searched.
16. In Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Shri. Pradyuman
Singhji Arjunsinghji [(1971) 3 SCC 844] the Apex Court held thus:
“4 . .... It is well settled that the power to review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. No provision in the Act was brought to notice from which it could be gathered that the Government had power to review its own order. If the Government had no power to review its own order, it is obvious that its delegate could not have reviewed its order.......”
17. The Review Petitioners failed to place on record any of the
requirements that warrant review of the impugned judgment. The
Review Petition lacks merits.
The Review Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
K.BABU, JUDGE
KAS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition meets the statutory requirements under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for discovery of new evidence or error apparent on the face of the record.
Whether the alleged error in the impugned judgment qualifies as a patent error warranting review.
Whether the review petitioners' contention relates to reappreciation of evidence barred in review proceedings.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh HabibExplained¶36
Sow Chandra Kante v. Sheikh Habib [(1975) 1 SCC 674] · Who else cites this
Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari ChoudhuryExplained¶38
Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [(1995) 1 SCC 170] · Who else cites this
Chhajju Ram v. NekiExplained¶40
Chhajju Ram v. Neki (AIR 1922 PC 112) · Who else cites this
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose AthanasiusExplained¶41
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and another v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and others [(1955) 1 SCR 520] · Who else cites this
T.C. Basappa v. T. NagappaExplained¶47
T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa [(1955) 1 SCR 250] · Who else cites this
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad IshaqueExplained¶50
Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Syed Ahmad Ishaque (AIR 1955 SC 233) · Who else cites this
Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech ElectrothermicsExplained¶53
Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics and Hydropower Ltd., and others [(2005) 6 SCC 651] · Who else cites this
Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co.LtdExplained¶63
Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co.Ltd [(2006) 5 SCC 501] · Who else cites this
S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana ReddyExplained¶64
S. Madhusudhan Reddy v. V. Narayana Reddy and Others (MANU/SC/1013/2022)
Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Shri. Pradyuman Singhji ArjunsinghjiExplained¶78
Patel Narshi Thakershi and others v. Shri. Pradyuman Singhji Arjunsinghji [(1971) 3 SCC 844] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
OMANA
A.C. DAVID
REJI KURIAN
K. BABU
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
K. BABU
Parties & counsel
