Review jurisdiction is limited to evident errors; it does not permit re-evaluation of the merits of the case.

ORDER

Dated this the 23rd day of June 2020 The review petitioners are the members of the Society namely 'Social Justice Foundation' (for short 'Society').

2. The Society challenged the common order of the learned Additional District Judge in I.A Nos.1623/12 and 884/17 before this Court and it was confirmed in O.P(C) No.1592 of 2017 and FAO No.193 of 2017 and directed the receiver to conduct the election of the society by following the directions in the judgment. Thereafter O.P No.849/2020 was allowed directing to make publication through leading newspapers with all details having wide circulation in Kerala as well Tamil Nadu so as to enable all the members to remit arrears of subscription/membership fees in the account maintained by the bank as such details were not mentioned with clarity in the notice already published by the receiver.

3. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, it is an intervention to the election process which has already been started by the receiver and hence this petition is to review the order dated 26.5.2020.

4. Heard Adv.Rafeek V.K, the learned Counsel for the petitioners and Adv.R.Krishna Raj, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent.

5. Order XLVII Rule of CPC provides the power of review of Judgment and it is set out herein below for ready reference :

“1. Application for review of judgment –

(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.

[Explanation- The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]

6. A review petition can be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of record and not on any ground. The scope of review jurisdiction has been considered by the Apex Court and this Court in so many cases and the law on this point is well settled. Some of the decisions in which the scope of review has elaborately considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are referred hereunder:

7. In M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v.

The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, [ AIR 1964 (SC 1372) ], it is observed as follows: “A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made out.”

8. InMeera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [ AIR 1995 SC 455 ], it was held that an error apparent