Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited; new evidence must be pertinent and not previously admissible. It cannot allow for rehearing issues already settled.

ORDER :

Muralee Krishna, J.

The petitioner Temple Advisory Committee of Ashtamangalam Sree Mahavishnu - Sree Bhagavathy Temple, which was arrayed as the 7^th respondent in W.P.(C)No.12549 of 2025 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ in short), seeking review of the common judgment dated 01.08.2025 passed by this Court in that writ petition along with DBP No.27 of 2025.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner-1^st respondent, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board, the learned counsel for the party respondents, and the learned Senior Government pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner would submit that the grievance raised in Ext.P5 complaint was mainly against the employees of the Temple and not against the petitioner Temple Advisory Committee. Therefore, there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the direction to dissolve the Temple Advisory Committee. The Committee had sought extension of time and was granted the same for completing the reinstallation of two flag masts, which was fixed to be held on 20.08.2025. A very same complaint as that of Ext.P5 complaint was submitted before the 7^th respondent, Chief Vigilance and Security Officer, on 01.02.2025, which is produced as Annexure A4 along with the review petition, wherein the 7^th respondent had already conducted a detailed enquiry and closed the same by Annexure A5 report dated 08.04.2025. The petitioner was not privy to Annexures A4 and A5 during the pendency of the writ petition. The directions of this Court have deprived the petitioner Committee and its members of performing the prior duties and obligations, leaving a blemish on themselves.

4. The learned counsel for the writ petitioner would submit that there are allegations against the petitioner Committee also, which are clearly narrated in the writ petition. It was noting the rival contentions of the parties, this Court has passed the judgment, and there is no error apparent on the face of the record.

5. The learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board submitted that the petitioner Temple Advisory Committee was dissolved and an intimation was issued to them.

6. The learned counsel for the party respondent would submit that this court passed the judgment in the writ petition on 01.08.2025. Even though there was a direction to dissolve the Temple Advisory Committee within a period of one week, the decision was not taken within time by the Board, with a view to facilitate the petitioner to proceed with the installation of flagmasts, and from the date of Annexure A3 notice dated 17.08.2025, the said fact is evident.

7. To understand the circumstances that entitle the Court to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate to go through the provisions concerned as well as the law on the point laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court and that of this Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court is concerned.

8. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus:

“114. Review- Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by this Code, or

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order, and the Cou