Review petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC regarding MFA No.126 of 2012 dismissed. Court held grounds raising alleged erroneous reasoning do not disclose mistake apparent on record. Petitioner directed to approach Apex Court.
Review petition fails on the ground that the errors alleged are not patent and apparent on the face of the record.
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 ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISANKAR V. MENON
WEDNESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE 2024 / 29TH JYAISHTA, 1946
RP NO. 1246OF 2019
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 01.11.2016 IN MFA NO.126 OF 2012 OF
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
AMBALA PARAMBIL KUNHAYIN,
S/O.AHAMMEDKUTTY HAJI, P.O. KUNNAMANGALAM,
KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM, KOZHIKODE TALUK, REPRESENTED BY
THE POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER JAFAR KHAN A.P.,
S/O.AMBALA PARAMBIL KUNHAYIN,
P.O. KUNNAMANGALAM, KUNNAMANGALAM AMSOM,
KOZHIKODE TALUK AND DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.
T.KRISHNANUNNI (SR.)
SRI.VINOD RAVINDRANATH
SMT.MEENA.A.
SRI.K.C.KIRAN
SMT.M.R.MINI
SRI.M.DEVESH
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY THE CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN- 695001.2 CUSTODIAN OF VESTED FORESTS, ARANYA BHAVAN, OLAVAKKODE, PALAKKAD, PIN- 678002.BY SRI.NAGARAJ NARAYANAN, SPL. G.P. FOR FOREST
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
19.06.2024, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
Review Petn. No.1246 of 2019
ORDER
Anil K. Narendran, J .
The appellant in M.F.A.No.126 of 2012, which was one filed invoking the provisions under Section 8A of the Kerala Private Forests (Vesting and Assignment) Act, 1971, challenging the order dated 04.08.2012 of the Forest Tribunal, Kozhikode, in O.A.No.41 of 2010, is the petitioner in this review petition, which is one filed invoking the provisions under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 01.11.2016 in that MFA.
C.M.Application No.2 of 2019 for condonation of a delay of 956 days.
3
Review Petn. No.1246 of 2019
and also the learned Special Government Pleader (Forest) for respondents.
Governor of Delhi [(1980) 2 SCC 167] the Apex Court held that, if the view adopted by the Court in the original judgment is a possible view, having regard to what the record states; it is difficult to hold that there is error apparent on the face of the record.
4
Review Petn. No.1246 of 2019
9. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC
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 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'.
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.
15 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that, the review jurisdiction
is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the
5
Review Petn. No.1246 of 2019
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.
13. Viewed in the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the decisions referred to supra, the conclusion is irresistible that the grounds raised in this review petition are not available to the petitioner, since it is beyond the purview of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code. If the petitioner has a case that the reasoning in the judgment of this Court dated 01.11.2016 in M.F.A. No.126 of 2012 is erroneous, he has to challenge the same by approaching the Apex Court, instead of invoking the
6
Review Petn. No.1246 of 2019
review jurisdiction of this Court under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code.
In such circumstances, this review petition fails on the aforesaid ground and the same is accordingly dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
HARISANKAR V. MENON, JUDGE
Skk//20.06.2024
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the grounds raised in the review petition show a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction.
Whether the contention that the reasoning in the impugned judgment was erroneous justifies filing a review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
Whether a review petition can be allowed merely to substitute or reargue a view taken by the Court in the original judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Thungabhadra Industries Ltd v. Government of Andhra PradeshReferred¶32
[AIR 1964 SC 1372] · Who else cites this
Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of DelhiReferred¶3334
[(1980) 2 SCC 167] · Who else cites this
Parsion Devi v. Sumitri DeviReferred¶3738
[(1997) 8 SCC 715] · Who else cites this
Lily Thomas v. Union of IndiaReferred¶3940
[(2006) 3 SCC 224] · Who else cites this
Anantha Reddy N. v. Anshu KathuriaReferred¶4145
[(2013) 15 SCC 534] · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ambala Parambil Kunhayin
State of Kerala
Custodian of Vested Forests
Anil K. Narendran
Harisankar V. Menon
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court