Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 665
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
Rakesh G - Appellant
Versus
State Of Kerala - Respondents
RP No. 271 of 2025
Decided on : 14-03-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : ADV MARY BENJEMIN
For the Respondents: GOPIKRISHNAN NAMBIAR M, K.JOHN MATHAI(K/413/1984), JOSON MANAVALAN(J-526), KURYAN THOMAS(K/131/2003)
IMPORTANT POINT
Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited to new evidence, errors apparent on the record, or sufficient reasons, not for rearguing settled issues.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sections 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 - Review petition - The petitioner seeks review of the judgment dismissing the writ appeal, claiming new evidence and errors in the previous judgment. The Court found no sufficient grounds for review as the petitioner failed to demonstrate any new and important matter or error apparent on record. (Paras 1 - 24 )
(B) Grounds for Review - The court reiterated that review is limited to discovery of new evidence, apparent errors, or sufficient reasons, and cannot be used to reargue settled issues. (Paras 5 , 9 - 10 )
(C) Evidence and Procedural Requirements - The petitioner did not meet the burden of proof to show that he could not have produced the new evidence earlier, nor did he establish statutory violations regarding salary deductions. (Paras 21 - 22 )
(D) Intent of the Petitioner - The Court noted the petitioner's intention to delay proceedings and found the review petition to be an appeal in disguise. (Paras 23 - 24 )
Findings of Court:
The review petition was dismissed as the petitioner did not substantiate any grounds for review under the applicable provisions of law.
Issues: The main issues included whether sufficient grounds existed for review and whether the petitioner could produce new evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed that review jurisdiction does not allow for reexamination of merits and is confined to specific grounds as outlined in the CPC.
Result: Review petition dismissed.
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 this Court in the writ appeal. According to the petitioner his prayer to quash Ext.P4 order of transfer from Shirdi to Imphal was rejected by this Court mainly for the reason that for 20 years i.e. from 2005 to 2023 he was working in the Headquarters at Kochi. But in the writ petition it was pleaded by him that during the tenure from 2011 till July 2023 the petitioner was executing various jobs allocated to him in the role of Group Head, heading various Business Verticals of KITCO. It was also pleaded that ever since his joining the organisation the petitioner was working in KITCO looking after various infrastructure projects located in and outside Kerala as well outside India from KITCO Head Office. According to the petitioner, this pleading in the writ petition was not disputed by the 2nd respondent and instead admitted in para 18 of the counter affidavit. The second ground for review raised by the petitioner is that the prayer to quash Ext.P7 was rejected by this Court mainly for the reason that the petitioner was also a party to the said decision, being one of the members of the Internal Committee of Senior Officers which recommended the management to reduce the salary. It is a mistaken fact and the petitioner was not a party to the said decision even according to the 2nd respondent. The third ground for review stated by the petitioner is that for rejecting the prayer to quash Ext.P7 this Court gave a reason that the petitioner did not dispute the contention in the counter affidavit of the 2nd respondent that the loss of the company touched Rs.12.80 crores as on 30.11.2024. In fact the petitioner was not in a position to dispute the same as the balance sheet of the company for the year 2024 was not circulated or available in the public domain of KITCO, including the website of KITCO. By producing Annexure II Director’s report for the financial year ended March 31, 2023 of the 2nd respondent, the petitioner contends that the company is not in a loss. The fourth ground stated by the petitioner for review is that his prayer to quash Ext.P7 was rejected stating the reason that he did not challenge the decision to reduce the salary till the filing of the writ petition, which is against the facts. In fact the order dated 21.01.2025 by the Labour Commissioner as referred to in the judgment was arrived at on the complaint made by the 2nd respondent and Annexure IV minutes of the meeting dated 07.10.2023 held in the chambers of the Deputy Labour Commissioner would show that the petitioner was also present in that meeting and signed as serial No.7. According to the petitioner, for all these reasons, the judgment passed by this Court has to be reviewed and the writ appeal has to be allowed.
5. In order to understand the circumstances that entitle the court t
