Review power is limited to self-evident errors, discovery of new evidence, or sufficient reason; no re-arguing previously decided issues permitted.

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 respondent in O.P.(KAT)No.13 of 2018, seeking review of the judgment dated 14.11.2025, passed by this Court whereby that original petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned Ext.P3 order dated 10.04.2017 passed by the Kerala Administrative Tribunal in O.A.No.1984 of 2015 and consequently, the original application stands dismissed.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that this Court allowed the original petition on finding that the review petitioner- respondent is not appointed in a sanctioned post. She is not a contract employee, as observed in Ext.P3 impugned order, and she is a casual sweeper. If a post of part-time sweeper was created by the Government in the year 2005, the review petitioner-respondent would not have been prejudiced.

4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that there is only one post of part-time sweeper available in the Taluk Headquarters Hospital, Karunagapally. In the reply statement filed by the Government before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, the available posts are stated. The petitioner-respondent is not appointed to a sanctioned post. There is no error in the judgment dated 14.11.2025 passed by this 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 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 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 g