1. A review petition was filed challenging a judgment that upheld an execution court order rejecting objections to the executability of a decree. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 68254
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Mohammed Nias C.P., J
Sreedevi G.R – Appellant
Versus
B. Vijayakumar – Respondent
RP NO. 1318 OF 2026|CRP NO.16 OF 2025
Important Points
A review petition is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as a disguised second hearing or for introducing evidence that could have been produced with due diligence.
Subject
Civil - Execution Proceedings
Headnote
(A) Civil Procedure - Review Petition - Scope - A review is maintainable only when there are errors apparent on the face of the record; it cannot be used as a second hearing in disguise or to re-argue merits that require an appeal. (Para 4)
(B) Evidence - Discovery of new evidence - Review - Production of new evidence does not justify a review unless the party demonstrates that such evidence was unknown despite due diligence. (Para 4)
(C) Legal Practice - Change of Counsel - Filing a review petition through different counsel from the original proceedings is a practice viewed with circumspection by the courts. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the review petition is maintainable on the ground of errors apparent on the record or discovery of new evidence.
(B) Evidence - Discovery of new evidence - Review - Production of new evidence does not justify a review unless the party demonstrates that such evidence was unknown despite due diligence. (Para 4)
(C) Legal Practice - Change of Counsel - Filing a review petition through different counsel from the original proceedings is a practice viewed with circumspection by the courts. (Para 5)
Issues: Whether the review petition is maintainable on the ground of errors apparent on the record or discovery of new evidence.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Venugopalan Nair, P.V. Anil
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Venugopalan Nair, P.V. Anil
Table of Contents
2. The petitioner argued that an earlier order dismissing a property delivery application rendered the decree unexecutable, despite the order not being produced previously. (Para 3 )
3. The court observed that review petitions require errors apparent on the face of the record, not re-argument, and new evidence is inadmissible without proving due diligence. (Para 4 )
4. A review is maintainable only for errors apparent on the face of the record; late production of evidence without justification or due diligence does not warrant review. (Para 4 )
5. The court dismissed the review petition due to lack of merit and inappropriate filing practices. (Para 5 )
6. What are the essential grounds upon which a review petition can be maintained?
A review petition is maintainable only when there are errors apparent on the face of the record. It cannot be used as a second hearing in disguise or to re-argue the merits of the case. (Para 4 )
7. Can new evidence be introduced in a review petition?
Yes, but only if the party demonstrates that the evidence was previously unknown despite the exercise of due diligence. Discovery of new evidence is not a ground for review absent such justification. (Para 4 )
8. Does the change of counsel in a review petition affect its maintainability?
While the court noted that the practice of engaging different counsel for a review petition has been deprecated and viewed with circumspection, the primary ground for dismissal remained the lack of merit and failure to meet the requirements for review. (Para 5 )
This review is filed against the judgment dated 28.09.2026 in CRP No.16 of 2025. The said revision was filed against the order dated 23.11.2024 in E.A No.373 of 2023 in E.P. No.529 of 2005 in O.S. No.1352 of 2003, on the file of the Additional Munsiff Court-III, Trivandrum, by which an application objecting to the executability of a decree was rejected.
2. Through the said judgment, the rival contentions were noticed, and this Court found that the objections on the maintainability of the execution petition were rightly rejected, as the judgment debtors therein did not contest the suits or the execution petition and had not raised the validity of the judgment and decree in OS No.1352 of 2003 at any prior stage. It was also found that, on account of a claim by a third party claiming right and possession, which the revision petitioner supported, the second suit could not have been said to be barred. Reasons were given for confirming the order of the execution court and dismissing the revision.
3. This review has been filed contending that through an order in EA No.1091 of 1998 dated 07.04.2003, the application filed to get delivery of the property by the respondent was dismissed. However, the said order was never produced, and no reason is given for not producing the same before.
4. It is trite that a review can be maintained only if there are errors apparent on the face of the record and not any matter which has to be decided by a process of argument. A review cannot be converted into a second hearing in disguise. Thus, reviews are limited to clear errors, not erroneous judgments on merits, which require appeals. The discovery of new evidence does not justify a review unless the party can demonstrate that the evidence was previously unknown despite due diligence. The concept of obvious error is one that should be apparent from the record without extensive analysis.
5. It is also to be noted that the review petition is filed through different counsel. The practice of filing review through different counsel has been deprecated in several judgments. The courts have consistently viewed with circumspection the appearance of a counsel different from the one who appeared in the original proceedings, particularly in Review Petitions. For the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in this review petition. The review fails and is accordingly dismissed.
