The power of review is limited to correcting mistakes on record and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise.

O R D E R

This Review Petition is preferred under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure , seeking to review the common judgment of this Court dated 08.12.2025 in W.P(C) Nos.44400/2025 and

41831/2025.

2. The review petitioner herein is the 5^th respondent in WP(C).

No. 44400/2025. The review petitioner states that he has filed a detailed counter-affidavit in the writ petition, contending that there is only one Jeevatha for the temple, which was dedicated by the devotees and has been in continuous use for temple festivals for the last several years. It is further submitted that the Jeevatha, said to have been constructed by nine families, has not been surrendered despite specific directions of this Court in WP(C)

No.37398/2016 dated 01.12.2016 (Annexure-A1).

3. It is further stated in the review petition that the old Jeevatha available in the temple is one dedicated by the devotees and that alone could be used for all temple festival rituals, including the Para Eduppu.

4. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the impugned judgment was passed without noting the directions contained in Annexure-A1 judgment dated 01.12.2016 and against the directions issued by this Court in WP(C) No.2614/2016 dated 12.02.2025.

5. According to the learned counsel for the review petitioner, there are errors apparent on the face of record and therefore, the impugned judgment is to be reviewed.

6. Heard.

7. Before we proceed with the discussion, it would be useful to extract Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure .

“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 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.”

“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. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, (1997) 8 SCC 715 , the Apex Court held as under:

” 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasonin