Appu Joseph v. Mayinkutty
Case brief
What is this about?
RP 465/2025, High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (2025:KER:30924), M.A. Abdul Hakhim J., decided 08.04.2025. Review of judgment dated 17.03.2025 in RSA 935/2018 (second appeal and cross objection dismissed; suit for declaration over plaint B schedule property including plaint A schedule of 8.94 cents, correction of resurvey records, prohibitory injunction granted, mandatory injunction refused). Held: review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC requires error apparent on the face of the record — apparent from the judgment itself, patent and glaring, self-evident; error needing a process of reasoning does not qualify; rehearing impermissible; review shall not be an appeal in disguise; grounds alleging mere erroneous findings rejected as attempt to re-agitate entire matter; review petition dismissed.
What did the court decide?
A review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is maintainable only if the review petitioner is able to substantiate that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, meaning an error that is apparent from the judgment itself and is patent and glaring.