Review proceedings are limited to errors apparent on the face of the record, not for re-evaluating facts or arguments already considered.

ORDER

Dated this the 09th day of January, 2026

Syam Kumar V.M., J.

This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 25.10.2025 in W.A.No.939 of 2023. Review Petitioner was the appellant in the said Writ Appeal.

2. The Writ Appeal was filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the W.P.(C) filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 3^rd respondent shopping mall to return the amount of Rs.20/- collected from him towards parking fee. He had also, in the W.P.(C), sought a writ of prohibition directing the State as well as the concerned local Government Authority to restrain the 3^rd respondent shopping mall from collecting any money from the public towards parking fees.

3. This Court, vide the judgment sought to be reviewed, had dismissed the Writ Appeal inter alia holding that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition were valid and proper and that no interference was necessary with respect to the findings arrived at. This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner, contending that the judgment contains an error apparent on the face of the record and that crucial facts and statutory violations had been overlooked while rendering the judgment sought to be reviewed.

4. Heard the Review Petitioner, Sri.Bosco Louis, who appeared in person, Sri.S.Sreekumar, Senior Advocate appearing for the 3^rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 4.

5. The petitioner submitted that false and fabricated parking fee licences had been produced by the 3rd respondent and that Rule 29 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules had been violated. He submits that the licence issued is with respect to a nonexistent parking area and that the very location stated in the licence is false, proving fabrication. It is further contended that while the parking fee collection licenses could have been issued only by the Revenue Department of the Municipality, the purported licence produced by the official respondents bears the signature of the Health Department officials. This, according to the petitioner, is a serious procedural irregularity and shows that the document had been manufactured to mislead this Court. It is contended that using a ‘fake’ licence, the Mall had illegally collected parking fees and had been blocking the mandated parking space requirement for ‘other establishments’ as per Rule 29 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. The petitioner submitted that manifest injustice had resulted from overlooking the above said violations and that substantial questions of public importance that had been raised, which affect the national urban mobility, public access rights and consumer rights had been overlooked in the judgment, thus requiring a review thereof.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3^rd respondent submitted that the Review Petition does not reveal any error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review of the judgment, and that the R.P. has been filed only as a chance litigation.

7. It is to be noted that the circumstances in which the review jurisdiction is to be exercised are no longer res integra. Section 114 of the CPC , which is the substantive provision, deals with the scope of review and states as follows:

“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 f