Omission to consider an earlier decision and failure to raise a pure question of law during the original hearing does not constitute an error apparent on the face of the record.

J.B. Koshy, J.

1. As per the order dated 27.11.1990 in C.R.P. No. 2184 of 1987, this Court held that respondents 1 to 6, who are respondents 1 to 6 in the review petition, are kudikidappukars and entitled to purchase ten cents of land under S.80-B of the Kerala Land Reforms Act. The review petition filed by the petitioner in the revision petition is directed against the said order passed by His Lordship Justice P. Krishnamoorthy on the ground that there is error apparent on the face of the record.

2. The petitioner had instituted O.S. No. 270 of 1970 before the Munsiff's Court, Parappanangadi against the respondents for recovery of possession with arrears of rent from the kudikidappukars. At the time when the suit was filed, there was no proceeding initiated by the respondents under S.80-B of the Act. In the suit, respondents 1 to 6 and their deceased mother had contended that they were kudikidappukars in respect of the disputed hut and the property. The Munsiff Court referred the matter to the Land Tribunal. The Land Tribunal found the respondents are not entitled to the kudikidappu right. Accordingly, the suit was decreed by the court below as per the judgment and decree dated 20-11-1976. Meanwhile, an independent application was filed by respondents 1 to 4 as O.A.No. 66 of 1971, which was dismissed by the Land Tribunal. On appeal, the appellate authority allowed kudikidappu. When the matter was heard, the main contention was that the original application was filed subsequent to the filing of the suit was not pointed out. If the original application was filed subsequent to the filing of the suit and reference, the original application is not maintainable, as held by this Court in the decision reported in Parameswaran Thampi v. Podiyan Thomas (1984 KLT 397), this Court held that when the question of tenancy is in issue in a civil court, a party to that proceeding cannot bypass the court and seek to obtain redress from a Tribunal by filing a petition under S.72 of the Act. An attempt thus made to invite a decision on the question of tenancy by Tribunal during the pendency of the suit cannot be encouraged or supported. The Tribunal shall either wait till the civil court renders its decision or if the Tribunal proceeds to enter any finding on the tenancy, it will only be a tentative decision subject to the final decision of the civil court. The above decision was approved by the Supreme Court later. If the decision in Parameswaran Thampi's case (1984 KLT 397) was brought to the notice of the learned Judge, the decision would have been otherwise as the subsequent original application and the appellate decision were not binding on the civil court. Therefore, according to the petitioner, the order must be reviewed since there is an error apparent on the face of the record.

3. In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhry (AIR 1995 SC 455), the Supreme Court, following the decision in Satyanarayanan Laxminarayanan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumala (AIR 1960 SC 137), held that an error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record and where an alleged error is far from self evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ.

4. A reading of the order, it was contended, would show that this settled legal position was not taken into account and, therefore, it is an error apparent on the face of the record. In Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos and another v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and Others (AIR 1954 SC 526), it was held that misconception of an order of court is a ground for review. It was also held that the majority judgments of the Full Bench were defective on the face of it in that they