Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V, K. V. JAYAKUMAR, JJ
V.D.THANKACHAN – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF KERALA – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
K.V. Jayakumar, J.
This Review Petition is preferred under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure , by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20996/2024, seeking to review the common judgment of this Court dated
17.10.2025 in W.P(C) Nos.14200/2024 and 20996/2024.
2. The two Writ Petitions were filed challenging the order of the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. This Court, as per judgment dated 17.10.2025, has allowed W.P.(C) No. 14200/2024 filed by the Cochin Devaswom Board and dismissed W.P.(C) No. 20996/2024 preferred by the review petitioner herein.
3. The learned counse
Review jurisdiction is distinct from appellate jurisdiction; it cannot be used to challenge prior judgments without evident errors.
Review under Order XLVII follows strict criteria; it cannot serve as an avenue to reargue settled matters.
Review jurisdiction under CPC is limited; cannot reargue issues already settled.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of review may only be exercised for specific reasons such as the discovery of new evidence, mistake, or error apparent on the face o....
The power of review is limited to correcting mistakes on record and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise.
Review petitions under Order XLVII CPC are for correcting evident mistakes, not re-evaluating cases.
Review power is limited to self-evident errors, discovery of new evidence, or sufficient reason; no re-arguing previously decided issues permitted.
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise and is confined to specific grounds as per the Code of Civil Procedure.
(1) Review jurisdiction – Application for review would also lie if order has been passed on account of some mistake—Review court does not sit in appeal over its own order—Rehearing of matter is imper....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article