Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 1308
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
T.R. RAVI, J.
Arvind Pundalik Tendulkar, Son Of Pundalik S. Tendulkar – Petitioner
Versus
Raju K. Mathews, S/o. Mathew and Anr. – Respondents
R.P. No.1289 of 2024 in F.A.O.No.124 of 2023
Decided On : 20-05-2025
For the Petitioner: Abraham Joseph Markos, Adv. Sri Anil D'souza, V.Abraham Markos, Alexander Joseph Markos, Isaac Thomas, P.G. Chandapillai Abraham, John Vithayathil, Nabeel Ahamed S.
For the Respondents: Geevarghese Varghese (Party-In-Person), Sri K. Mohan, Sri M.P. Ramnath.
Review proceedings must be strictly confined to the grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, and errors must be apparent without extensive deliberation.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XXXVIII Rule 5 - Review petition filed on grounds of error apparent on the face of the record - Court emphasized that review proceedings are not appeals and must be confined to specific grounds - The power of review cannot be exercised on merits or for errors not apparent on the face of the record. (Paras 1-3)
(B) Review Jurisdiction - The Supreme Court has laid down principles for exercising review jurisdiction, emphasizing that errors must be clear and not require extensive analysis - The mere possibility of two views does not justify a review. (Paras 2-3)
Facts of the case:
The review petition was filed by the 1st respondent, claiming that the court failed to consider factors under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC and that the order of attachment should be limited to a specific sum.
Findings of Court:
The court found no error apparent on the face of the record and determined that the review petition did not meet the criteria for review.
Issues: The main issues included whether the court erred in its judgment and whether the attachment order was justified.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that review proceedings must be strictly confined to the grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, and errors must be apparent without extensive deliberation.
Result: Review petition dismissed.
ORDER :
(T.R. RAVI, J.)
This review petition, seeking review of the judgment dated 18.10.2024 in F.A.O.No.124/2023, has been filed by the 1st respondent in the appeal. The main ground on which the review is sought is that there is an error apparent on the face of the record, as the Court has not considered the factors enumerated in Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure as elaborated by the Apex Court in Raman Tech. & Process Engg. Co. & Anr v. Solanki Traders [2008 (2) SCC 302]. It is also stated that several other submissions on behalf of the review petitioner have not been considered. There is also a contention taken that the order of attachment should have been limited to a sum of Rs.4,61,31,838/-.
2. The grounds on which a review can be preferred are no longer res integra. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has recently, in the judgment in Siddamsetty Infra Projects Pvt.Ltd v. Katta Sujatha Reddy and others 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3214, held as follows:
“D. Grounds for exercising review jurisdiction
18. Before proceeding with the analysis, we will refer to the grounds for exercising review jurisdiction. Order XLVII of the Supreme Court Rules 2013 states that an application for review must be filed on the grounds mentioned in Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 (“CPC”). Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC lays down the following grounds for review:
a. Discovery of new and important matter or evidence, which after the exercise of due diligence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by them at the time the decree was passed;
b. Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; and c. Any other sufficient reason.
19. This Court has laid down the following principles on the exercise of review jurisdiction7
a. Review proceedings are not by way of appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC;
b. Error on the face of record must be an error which must strike one on a mere perusal and must not on a long drawn process;
c. The power of review must not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits;
d. The phrase “any other sufficient reason” means a reason that is analogous to the grounds specified in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; and
e. The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review”.
3. The review petition cannot, hence, be treated as an appeal, and the error should be apparent on the face of the record, on a mere perusal, and not on a long drawn-out process. Error in the decision on its merits is also not a ground available for exercising the power of review. A reading of the grounds raised in this review petition shows that the review petitioner contends that the judgment is erroneous on the merits. Going by the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is no reason to entertain this review petition.
4. On merits, the contention is that an order of attachment ought not to have been granted in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raman Tech. (supra). The counsel for the review petitioner placed reliance on paragraphs 4 & 5 of the judgment, which are extracted below:
“4. The object of supplemental proceedings (applications for arrest or attachment before judgment, grant of temporary injunctions and appointment of receivers) is to prevent the ends of justice being defeated. The object of Order 38 Rule 5 CPC in particular, is to prevent any defendant from defeating the realisation of the decree that may ultimately be passed in favour of the plaintiff, either by attempting to dispose of, or remove from the jurisdiction of the court, his movables. The scheme of Order 38 and the use of the words “to obstruct or delay the execution of any decree that may be passed against him” in Rule 5 make it clear that before exercising the power under the said Rule, the court should be satisfied that there is a reasonable chance of a decree being passed in the suit against the defendant. This would mean that the cour
