Kerala High Court
O.N. Krishnan vs Kerala Bank on 1 August, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
RP No.638 of 2025 2025:KER:57095
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
FRIDAY, THE 1ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 10TH SRAVANA, 1947
RP NO. 638 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.04.2025 IN WA NO.980 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
O.N. KRISHNAN, AGED 74 YEARS
OLAPURAKKAL HOUSE, K.S. PURAM,
KADUTHURUTHY, KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686604
BY ADVS.
SHRI.E.N.VISHNU NAMBOODIRI
SHRI.P.SANKARAN NAMPOOTHIRI
SRI.M.K.SASEENDRAN (MELEL)
SHRI.NARAYANAN P POTTY
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 2 AND 3:
1 KERALA BANK REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE
OFFICER, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, IN ITS CAPACITY AS THE
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD. NO. 4309
ALSO, PIN - 695033
2 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695001
2
RP No.638 of 2025 2025:KER:57095
3 THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695014
SMT.NISHA BOSE, SR.G.P
SRI.P.C SASIDHARAN, SC, KERALA BANK
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 23.07.2025, THE
COURT ON 01.08.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
RP No.638 of 2025 2025:KER:57095
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 ('CPC' for short), by the 1st respondent in W.A. No.980 of 2024, seeking review of the judgment dated 11.04.2025, whereby the writ appeal was allowed by setting aside the impugned judgment dated 03.06.2024 in W.P.(C)No. 4076 of 2023.
2. The review petitioner ('petitioner' for short) was an employee of the 1st respondent Bank. While working as a Manager in the Chembu Branch of the Bank he was suspended, and an enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer issued a charge memo dated 19.11.2002 to the petitioner and as per Ext.P2 domestic enquiry report dated 12.08.2003, nine charges out of total twelve charges mentioned in the charge memo were found against the petitioner. Based on the said enquiry report, the petitioner was dismissed from service with effect from 09.09.2003 by the president of the bank. Against the dismissal order, the petitioner filed Ext.R2(d) appeal before the Board of Directors of the Bank 4 RP No.638 of 2025 2025:KER:57095 on 21.10.2003. The said appeal was relegated to the Executive Committee, by Ext.R2(e) proceedings dated 03.11.2003, and by Ext.R2(f) proceedings dated 04.12.2003, the Executive Committee confirmed the dismissal of the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision petition before the Government against the dismissal order. By Ext.P3 order dated 30.12.2022, the Government dismissed the revision mainly for the reason that it was filed with a long delay of 18 years and 9 months.
3. As per the impugned judgment dated 03.06.2024, the learned Single Judge quashed Ext.P3 order dated 30.12.2022 of the Government and Ext.R2(f) proceedings dated 04.12.2003 of the Executive committee of the 1 st respondent Bank and remitted Ext.R2(d) appeal dated 21.10.2003 filed by the petitioner to the Board of Directors of the 1 st respondent Bank to consider afresh after giving the petitioner an opportunity of hearing, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of that judgment.
4. Against the judgment in the writ petition, the 1 st respondent Bank filed W.A. No.980 of 2024 before this Court, and 5 RP No.638 of 2025 2025:KER:57095 the writ appeal was allowed by the judgment dated 11.04.2025, as said above. Contending that there is error apparent on the face of the record crept in the appeal judgment, the petitioner filed the present review petition.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent Bank and the learned Senior Government Pleader.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner had approached the authority concerned in time, against Ext.R2(f) proceedings of the Executive committee. There is no laches on the part of the petitioner to approach the statutory authority under Section 198 of the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act within time, in spite of the fact that he had not served a copy of the dismissal order. The delay for filing the revision petition was condoned by the Government before Ext.P3 order itself. The finding of this Court in paragraph 13 of the judgment that after the amendment to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, with effect from 02.01.2023, the petitioner was entitled to approach the Co-operative Arbitration Court to redress his 6 RP No.638 of 2025 2025:KER:57095 grievance occurred due to misconception of law. No amendment to the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act will invalidate or diminish the power of the Government to revise or set aside an executive order. The learned counsel relied on the various judgments of the Apex Court regarding review jurisdiction of the Court under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC.
7. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent Bank would submit that this Court has considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner in the appeal judgment, and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. The learned Senior Government Pleader also supported the arguments of the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent.
8. 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.
7
RP No.638 of 2025 2025:KER:57095 9. 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."
10. 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 8 RP No.638 of 2025 2025:KER:57095 of the record or 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 ground for the review of such judgment."
11. It is trite that the power of review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of the CPC is available to be exercised only on setting up any one of the following grounds by the petitioner.
(i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or
(iii) any other sufficient reason.
12. In Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [(1980) 2 SCC 167] the Apex Court held that under the guise of 9 RP No.638 of 2025 2025:KER:57095 review, a litigant cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.
13. The Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] held thus:
"Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
(Underline supplied)
14. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534] the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on the face of the record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs no search, and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits.
10
RP No.638 of 2025 2025:KER:57095
15. In Sasi (D) through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair and others [AIR 2017 SC 1432] the Apex Court held that in order to exercise the power of review, the error has to be self- evident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning.
16. In Shanthi Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State Electricity Board and others [(2020) 2 SCC 677] the Apex Court by referring to Parsion Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] held thus:
"The scope of review is limited and under the guise of review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided".
17. Again in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. [2024 SCC Online SC 1090] the Apex Court considered the grounds for review in detail and held thus:
"Order XVLII does not end with the circumstances as S.114, CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under S.114 read with Order XLVII, CPC is available to be exercised, subject to fulfilment of the above conditions, on setting up by the review petitioner any of the following grounds:
(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or 11 RP No.638 of 2025 2025:KER:57095
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
(iii) any other sufficient reason."
18. In Sujatha Aniyeri v. Kannur University [2025 KHC OnLine 212] in which one of us is a party [Muralee Krishna S., J] after considering the point, what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record, this court held that review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits.
19. While going through the judgment under review passed in W.A. No.980 of 2024, we notice that we have considered all the contentions raised by the petitioner in detail. The contention now raised by the petitioner that there is no delay in approaching the Government by the petitioner against Ext.R2(f) decision was also considered in the appeal judgment. Similarly, the provisions under the Kerala Co-operative Societies Act, 1969, were also considered in detail in the judgment. It appears from the nature of the contentions raised by the petitioner that the petitioner is now trying to use the review jurisdiction of this Court as an appeal in disguise, which is not permissible under law. 12
RP No.638 of 2025 2025:KER:57095
20. On hearing the learned counsel on both sides and appreciating the materials on record, we find no sufficient reason to say that the petitioner has made out any of the grounds provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the CPC to review the judgment dated 11.04.2025 passed by this Court in the writ appeal.
In the result, the review petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE