Review jurisdiction under CPC limited to self-evident errors; prior judgments cannot be re-argued without clear grounds.

ORDER

Muralee Krishna, J.

The 1st respondent in O.P.(KAT) No.359 of 2025 filed this review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’ for short), pleading that there is an error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated 10.09.2025 passed by this Court in that original petition.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1^st respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that this Court has observed in the judgment about a finding in favour of the petitioner in Annexure A5 order of the Tribunal, as an observation which, in effect, reduced the value and rigour of the said order. When the Tribunal in Annexure A5 order dated 03.03.2023 found that the memo of charges was unwarranted, due to the assertion in the judgment that admittedly disciplinary proceedings are pending, the department and the Tribunal will not be able to accept the findings in Annexure A5. When the moot question in the original petition was only with respect to the interim orders, this Court has rendered the judgment discussing the scope and ambit of regular promotion under Rule 28 of the Kerala State and Subordinate Services Rules (‘KS & SSR’ in short) with or without notional effect. For these reasons, the judgment is liable to be reviewed.

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent would submit that in the original application, there was no challenge against the disciplinary proceedings. There is no provision to keep one vacancy unfilled, and this Court rightly arrived at the findings in the judgment, and there is no error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground to review that judgment.

5. The learned Senior Government Pleader submitted that by the direction in the judgment interest of all the parties to the lis is protected, and there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment.

6. In order to understand the circumstances that entitle the court to exercise it’s 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, as well as 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.

7. 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 Court may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”

8. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus:

“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 of 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 the order.

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judg