Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K. NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S.
Malappuram District Co-Operative Bank – Appellant
Versus
Kerala State Co-Operative Employees Pension Board – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petition filed under order xlvii for review. (Para 1) |
| 2. errors in earlier judgment concerning transfers. (Para 3) |
| 3. respondents argue against bank's claims. (Para 4) |
| 4. conditions under which review may be granted. (Para 6 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. provisions under cpc for review. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 6. court finds grounds for review insufficient. (Para 17) |
| 7. review petition dismissed. (Para 18) |
ORDER :
1. The appellant in W.A.No.407 of 2024 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the judgment dated 06.02.2025 passed by this Court in the writ appeal, claiming that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in that judgment.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner/appellant, the respective Standing Counsel for respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondents 3 to5.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in the judgment dated 24.11.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7523 of 2023 the proceedings issued by the Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board ordering the petitioner to pay a sum of
Review jurisdiction is strictly limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and does not allow for rehearing or reargument of previously decided issues.
Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited to new evidence, errors apparent on the record, or sufficient reasons, not for rearguing settled issues.
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.
Review petitions must demonstrate apparent errors on record; court cannot re-examine evidence or re-evaluate conclusions from original judgments.
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record; it cannot be used to reargue settled issues.
The power of review is limited to correcting apparent errors on the record and cannot be used to rehash arguments or findings that have been previously settled.
The court emphasized that the power of review is limited to correcting errors apparent on the record and cannot be used to revisit settled issues or arguments.
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....
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
