Review under Order XLVII follows strict criteria; it cannot serve as an avenue to reargue settled matters.

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 appellants in W.A.No.2705 of 2025, seeking review of the judgment dated 17.12.2025, passed by this Court, whereby that writ appeal was dismissed confirming the impugned judgment dated 08.10.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C)No.34411 of 2022.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned Standing Counsel for Kottayam Grama Panchayath. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners argued that the upholding of coercive direction compelling the petitioners to remove laterite stones from the disputed property is, in effect, recognising the claim of the Panchayath over the said pathway. When this Court, in the judgment, held that the issue relating to the status and character of the disputed pathway is a matter to be decided by a competent Civil Court, the upholding of the judgment of the learned Single Judge is an error apparent on the face of the record.

4. The learned Standing Counsel for the Grama Panchayath would submit that in the judgment, neither the learned Single Judge nor this Court entered a finding regarding the right over the disputed way raised by the parties. This Court further held in the judgment that a decision regarding the right over the disputed road cannot be arrived at by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and therefore, rightly held that the remedy available to the petitioners is not under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment. The learned Standing Counsel further submitted that the Panchayath has already removed the laterite stones stacked by the petitioners in the disputed road and placed them in the admitted property of the petitioners.

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 appe