A review petition cannot serve as an avenue for rehearing an appeal; it is limited to errors evident in the record.

SRI RILGIN V GEORGE SRI SUNIL KUMAR KURIAKOSE GP THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON

24.02.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

SUSHRUT ARVIND DHARMADHIKARI, &

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,JJ.

-------------------------------------

R.P.No. 1338 of 2025 in WA No.1868 of 2025 ---------------------------------

Dated this the 24^th day of February 2026

O R D E R

P.V.BALAKRISHNAN,J This review petition is filed by the appellants in W.A.No.1868/2025, seeking review of the judgment dated

4.8.2025, passed in it.

2. Heard Adv.K.V.Gopinathan Nair, the learned counsel for the review petitioners, Adv. Rilgin.V.George, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and Adv.Sunil Kumar Kuriakose, the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and

3.

3. It is to be seen that the judgment in W.A.No.1868/2025 was passed by this Court on merits, after considering the materials on record and hearing both sides in detail. A perusal of the grounds raised in this review petition would clearly show that what the review petitioners now seek is a rehearing of the writ appeal on merits, on the ground that the statutory provisions have been wrongly interpreted by this Court. It is a settled law as held by the Apex Court in the decisions in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [ AIR 1964 SC 1372 ] and Lily Thomas v. Union of India [ 2000(6) SCC 224 ] that a review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise, whereby an erroneous decision can be reheard and corrected. At this juncture, we would also take note of the submission made by the learned Senior Government Pleader that the judgment passed by this Court has already been implemented.

4. We find no error apparent on the face of the record warranting this review petition to be entertained.

Resultantly, this review petition is dismissed.

Sd/-