Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited; cannot reargue issues already settled.

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 by the appellant in W.A.No.1073 of 2025, seeking review of the judgment dated 27.05.2025, passed by a Division Bench of this Court wherein one among us [Muralee Krishna S., J.] was sitting along with Amit Rawal, J., by which the writ appeal was dismissed. Since Amit Rawal, J., demitted office, this review petition is listed before this Bench, as per roster.

2. According to the petitioner, a proper hearing was not afforded to the petitioner when the writ appeal came up for admission on 27.05.2025. Moreover, the petitioner could not produce Annexure-1 communication dated 07.02.1986 of the Government of India addressed to all Chief Secretaries of the State Governments, which is very relevant to the nature and constitution of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (‘K.V.S’ in short).

Therefore, the judgment is to be reviewed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Sree Sankaracharya University, the learned Special Government Pleader, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and the learned Standing Counsel for K.V.S.

4. When the petitioner says that a new and important matter by way of Annexure-1 communication of the Government of India came to the knowledge of the petitioner after the pronouncement of the judgment in the writ appeal, the learned counsel on the other side submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record or there is any other sufficient ground which entitles the petitioner to seek review of the judgment. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the detailed and considered judgment passed in the writ appeal, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Apex Court.

5. In order 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 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.

6. 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.”

7. 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 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 the 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 Co