Back
2025 Supreme(Ker) 2197
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, MURALEE KRISHNA S., JJ.
R.Sasidharan, S/o Raman - Appellant
Versus
Travancore Devaswom Board - Respondents
RP NO. 969 of 2025
Decided on : 05-08-2025
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : SRI.P.SIVARAJ, SMT.M.MEHAR FARSANA
For the Respondent: SRI.SANTHOSH KUMAR SC, TDB
The court clarified that review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on record and cannot be used to relitigate previously decided issues.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XLVII, Rule 1 - Review - The court considered whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgement dismissed on 24.06.2025 which denied the petitioner a writ of mandamus to obtain documents from the Travancore Devaswom Board. The review petition claimed the property in question belonged to the petitioner’s family and alleged manipulation of documents, but the court found that vague pleadings and lack of documentary evidence did not justify the review. No sufficient grounds were established for review under Sections 114 and Order XLVII of CPC, which pertain to new evidence, error apparent, or other sufficient reasons. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought a review of a judgement denying him access to official documents related to litigation involving properties of the Travancore Devaswom Board. The earlier judgement indicated the absence of supporting documents, leading to dismissal of the writ petition.
Findings of Court:
The court found no sufficient evidence to support the allegations of manipulation or to justify the review petition, emphasizing the limited scope of review jurisdiction.
Issues: The main issues were whether there was an error on the face of the record justifying the review and whether the petitioner provided sufficient grounds under CPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the review jurisdiction cannot be used to reargue matters already decided, and there was no error apparent that warranted a change in the previous decision.
Result: Review petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. property ownership and document access issues. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. parties' arguments regarding document possession. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. review procedures under cpc sections. (Para 7 , 8 , 9) |
| 4. criteria for review and related jurisprudence. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 5. assessment of petitioner’s claims and evidences. (Para 18 , 19) |
| 6. dismissal of review petition as no grounds met. (Para 20) |
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 petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13843 of 2023, seeking review of the judgment dated 24.06.2025, whereby the writ petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to give him the copy of document No.109/1122 ME of S.R.O. Ambalappuzha and the plaint copy, decree and judgment in O.S. No.43 of 1952 on the file of the Munsiff’s Court, Haripad, was dismissed.
2. The review petitioner (‘petitioner’ for short) filed W.P.(C)No.13843 of 2023, contending that the property covered in document bearing No.109/1122 ME of S.R.O. Ambalappuzha, belongs to the family of the petitioner, and it relates to the properties of Trippakudam Devaswom falling under the Mavelikkara and Haripad Group of Travancore Devaswom Board. It is the further case of the petitioner that the original of that document is in the custody of the 1st respondent, Travancore Devaswom Board. Some litigations were pending with the Travancore Devaswom Board in the Munsiff’s Court, Haripad, which was numbered as O.S. No.43 of 1952. The copies of the plaint, judgment and decree of that suit are also in the custody of the 1st respondent. Though the petitioner approached the 1st respondent for these documents, they were not furnished to him. The petitioner had approached this Court for necessary reliefs by filing W.P.(C)No.13249 of 2012, and as per the direction in that writ petition, he filed O.S. No.290 of 2012 before the Munsiff’s Court, Haripad. However, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the Travancore Devaswom Board was not made a party to the suit. The appeal filed by the petitioner as A.S. No.128 of 2015 was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara, as per Ext.P2 judgment dated 29.07.2016. The petitioner claims that some manipulations were made in the document at the Sub Registrar's office, and only a copy of the manipulated document is now available. He further claims that he initiated criminal proceedings against this manipulation by filing a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Haripad, apart from approaching the Police. With these allegations, the petitioner filed the writ petition.
3. Respondents 1 to 4 filed a counter-affidavit in the writ petition opposing the pleadings as well as the reliefs sought for. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and the materials on record, this Court dismissed the writ petition by the judgment dated 24.06.2025. Paragraph 12 of that judgment reads thus:
“12. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4, the possession of the documents mentioned in the writ petition is denied. On going through the pleadings in the writ petition and counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4, we are of the view that the petitioner has approached this Court with some vague pleadings unsupported by documentary evidence. As noted in the judgments referred to in the preceding paragraphs, the prayer in the instant writ petition is not one falling under the category of cases wherein the writ of mandamus can be issued by this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we hold that no sufficient ground has been made out by the petitioner to allow the writ petition”.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and the le
