Dharmajan Vs Sivadasan — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Dharmajan Vs Sivadasan — Kerala HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

RP NO. 164 OF 2025

1

2025:KER:30917

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

PRESENT

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947

RP NO. 164 OF 2025

AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 10.12.2024 IN RSA NO.644 OF 2024 OF

HIGH COURT OF KERALA

REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS:

1 DHARMAJAN

AGED 62 YEARS
S/O AYYAPPAN, DHANYANIVAS, PANAVALLY P.O, S VALAVU,
CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA-, PIN - 688526

2 SHAIMA DHARMAJAN,
AGED 54 YEARS

W/O DHARAMAJAN, DHANYANIVAS, PANAVALLY P.O, S VALAVU,
CHERTHALA ALAPPUZHA-, PIN - 688526

BY ADV BENRAJ K.R.

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

1 SIVADASAN,

AGED 66 YEARS
S/O. THANKY, AGED 66 YEARS, MATTATHIL, PANAVALLY MURI,
PANAVALLY.P.O, PANAVALLY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK,
ALAPPUZHA-, PIN - 688526

2 LEKSHMI, AGED 58 YEARS

W/O. SIVADASAN, MATTATHIL, PANAVALLY MURI, PANAVALLY.P.O,
PANAVALLY VILLAGE, CHERTHALA TALUK, ALAPPUZHA- 688526

THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE

COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

RP NO. 164 OF 2025

2

2025:KER:30917

ORDER

The appellants in the appeal have filed this Review Petition. This Court dismissed the Appeal filed by the Review Petitioners, confirming the judgment and decree passed by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. The Review Petitioners were the defendants in the suit. The suit was decreed against them.

The plaintiffs sought a permanent prohibitory injunction against the defendants from trespassing into the plaint schedule property on the allegation that the defendants are preventing construction of the residential building in the plaint schedule item Nos.1 & 2 properties with an intention to cut open a new pathway adjacent to the construction made by the plaintiffs.

The defendants claimed easement by prescription over the way through plaint schedule item Nos.1 & 2 properties.

The Trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court has considered the claim of right of easement by prescription and

RP NO. 164 OF 2025

3

2025:KER:30917 found that the defendants could not prove easement by prescription through the plaint schedule item No.1 & 2 properties towards eastern side. It is also found that there is another way towards the western side from the property of the defendants.

Now the Review petition is filed by raising certain grounds. On

going through the grounds, it is seen that the grievance of the Review petitioners is with respect to the findings of this Court in the impugned judgment. This Court dismissed the appeal at the admission stage finding that no substantial question of law is involved in the case. All the grounds are raised touching the merits of the case. They are not with reference to the substantial question of law to invoke the jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC. The grounds allege that this Court arrived at an erroneous finding by conquering with the findings of the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court. Even though several grounds are stated, it is not stated as to how the judgment is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the records. Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is available only if there is error

RP NO. 164 OF 2025

4

2025:KER:30917 apparent on the face of the record. The error apparent on the

face of the record would mean that the error should be apparent from the judgment itself. It should be patent and glaring. It is well settled that 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 record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. Even assuming that there is erroneous finding, it is not a ground to review the impugned judgment. It appears from the various grounds raised by the Review Petitioners that the attempt is to rehear the entire appeal which is not permissible under this jurisdiction. I do not propose to consider the various grounds raised in the Review Petition touching the merits of the matter in the absence of any error apparent on the face of the records.

Since the Review Petitioners have not made out any ground to review the judgment, I do not find any reason to entertain the Review Petition. Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM

Shg JUDGE