Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ
RAKESH G – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
ORDER :
Muralee Krishna, J.
This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the appellant in W.A.No.2117 of 2024 seeking review of the judgment dated 18.02.2025 passed by this Court whereby the writ appeal was dismissed.
2. According to the petitioner, certain material facts that are inevitable for deciding the writ appeal could not be produced along with the writ appeal or during the pendency of the same. Had those documents now produced with the review petition been produced earlier, the petitioner would have got all the reliefs sought for. Some of those documents were not available and he could get it only now. Apart from that there is an error apparent on the face of record in the judgment sought to be reviewed. The petitioner produced Annexures I to V along with the review petition, which according to him if produced earlier, the decision in the appeal would have been different.
3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the 2nd respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
4. The petitioner raised four reasons to seek review of the judgment dated 18.02.2025 passed by
Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited to new evidence, errors apparent on the record, or sufficient reasons, not for rearguing settled issues.
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
Review power is limited to self-evident errors, discovery of new evidence, or sufficient reason; no re-arguing previously decided issues permitted.
Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited; cannot reargue issues already settled.
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise and is confined to specific grounds as per the Code of Civil Procedure.
Review jurisdiction is limited to specific grounds such as new evidence or apparent errors, and cannot be used as an appeal mechanism.
Application for review of judgment - Powers of review cannot be exercised as an inherent power nor can an appellate power be exercised in guise of power of review. After holding this, Supreme court f....
Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to rehear a case or correct an erroneous decision without evidence of an error apparent on the face of the record.
A review petition must show an apparent error on the record to succeed, as delay does not extinguish the right to continuing benefits like family pensions.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
