Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Anil K. Narendran, Muralee Krishna S., JJ
Nizar Hussain M., S/o. Late Mohammed Kunju – Appellant
Versus
State of Kerala, Represented By The Principal Secretary To Government, Higher Education Department, Government Secretariat, Thiruvananthapuram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. factual background of the case (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. limited review grounds; no rehearing on merits (Para 3) |
| 3. parties' arguments regarding previous service consideration (Para 4 , 5) |
| 4. court's analysis on review powers and relevant laws (Para 6 , 17) |
| 5. ratio decidendi on the criteria for review (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 16 , 18) |
| 6. dismissal of the review petition (Para 19) |
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 (‘CPC’ for short), by the appellant in W.A. No.964 of 2017, claiming review of the judgment dated 26.05.2017, whereby the writ appeal was dismissed by this Court.
2. The petitioner was working as an Assistant Professor at the TKM College of Engineering, Kollam. He joined service as a Lecturer on 24.09.1998, and the post was later re-designated as Assistant Professor. While in service, he availed leave without allowance for five years from 18.02.2005 to 17.02.2010 for better employment abroad. He was granted leave subject to the conditions laid down in Appendix XIIA Part 1 of the Kerala Service Rules (‘KSR’ for short). Till 17.02.2010, he worked abroad and thereaf
A review in the context of the Code of Civil Procedure allows correction of apparent errors but does not serve as an appeal to reargue previously decided issues.
The review jurisdiction under CPC is not meant for re-arguing settled questions and is limited to error correction or consideration of new evidence.
A review petition under S.114 and O.47 R.1 of the CPC is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-argue or re-appreciate evidence on merits; it is maintainable only for patent errors appare....
The court emphasized that review petitions cannot reargue resolved issues but must identify clear, self-evident errors in prior judgments.
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.
Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited to new evidence, errors apparent on the record, or sufficient reasons, not for rearguing settled issues.
Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited; cannot reargue issues already settled.
The power of review is limited to correcting apparent errors, not to substitute judgments, and does not allow re-litigation of issues.
The court upholds that review jurisdiction does not permit relitigation of issues already addressed and dismissed.
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
