Kerala High Court
R.Sasidharan vs Travancore Devaswom Board on 5 August, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2025:KER:57738
1
RP No.969 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
TUESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 14TH SRAVANA, 1947
RP NO. 969 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2025 IN WP(C) NO.13843 OF
2023 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/PETITIONER:
R.SASIDHARAN,
AGED 79 YEARS
S/O RAMAN, NEDUMPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMARAPURAM PO,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690548
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.SIVARAJ
SMT.M.MEHAR FARSANA
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD
REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEVASWOM BOARD, HEAD
QUARTERS, NANTHANCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN -
695003
2 DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, HEAD QUARTERS, NANTHANCODU,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,, PIN - 695003
3 DEVASWOM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,AC OFFICE, NEAR KRISHNASWAMY
TEMPLE, MAVELIKKARA, PIN - 690101
2025:KER:57738
2
RP No.969 of 2025
4 DEVASWOM ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, AC OFFICE, NEAR HARIPAD,
RAILWAY STATION, HARIPAD,, PIN - 690514
5 JUNIOR SUPERINTENDENT
OFFICE OF THE JUDICIAL FIRST CLASS MAGISTRATE COURTII,
HARIPAD,, PIN - 690514
6 DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF
OFFICE OF THE DISTRICT POLICE CHIEF, ALAPPUZHA, PIN -
688001
7 R.PRAKASH
SUB GROUP OFFICER, (IN CHARGE), THRIPPAKAKUDAM TEMPLE,
HARIPAD, PIN - 690514
8 YASODHARAN
S/O RAMAN, LAL BHAVANAM, ERICKAVU PO, KUMARAPURAM
VILLAGE, KARTHIKAPPALLY TALUK,, PIN - 690514
SRI.SANTHOSH KUMAR SC, TDB
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 01.08.2025, THE
COURT ON 5.8.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2025:KER:57738
3
RP No.969 of 2025
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 petitioner in W.P.(C)No.13843 of 2023, seeking review of the judgment dated 24.06.2025, whereby the writ petition filed by him under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ of mandamus commanding respondents 1 to 4 to give him the copy of document No.109/1122 ME of S.R.O. Ambalappuzha and the plaint copy, decree and judgment in O.S. No.43 of 1952 on the file of the Munsiff's Court, Haripad, was dismissed.
2. The review petitioner ('petitioner' for short) filed W.P.(C)No.13843 of 2023, contending that the property covered in document bearing No.109/1122 ME of S.R.O. Ambalappuzha, belongs to the family of the petitioner, and it relates to the properties of Trippakudam Devaswom falling under the Mavelikkara and Haripad Group of Travancore Devaswom Board. It is the further case of the petitioner that the original of that document is in the custody of the 1st respondent, Travancore 2025:KER:57738 4 RP No.969 of 2025 Devaswom Board. Some litigations were pending with the Travancore Devaswom Board in the Munsiff's Court, Haripad, which was numbered as O.S. No.43 of 1952. The copies of the plaint, judgment and decree of that suit are also in the custody of the 1st respondent. Though the petitioner approached the 1 st respondent for these documents, they were not furnished to him. The petitioner had approached this Court for necessary reliefs by filing W.P.(C)No.13249 of 2012, and as per the direction in that writ petition, he filed O.S. No.290 of 2012 before the Munsiff's Court, Haripad. However, the suit was dismissed on the ground that the Travancore Devaswom Board was not made a party to the suit. The appeal filed by the petitioner as A.S. No.128 of 2015 was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Mavelikkara, as per Ext.P2 judgment dated 29.07.2016. The petitioner claims that some manipulations were made in the document at the Sub Registrar's office, and only a copy of the manipulated document is now available. He further claims that he initiated criminal proceedings against this manipulation by filing a private complaint before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Haripad, apart 2025:KER:57738 5 RP No.969 of 2025 from approaching the Police. With these allegations, the petitioner filed the writ petition.
3. Respondents 1 to 4 filed a counter-affidavit in the writ petition opposing the pleadings as well as the reliefs sought for. After considering the rival contentions of the parties and the materials on record, this Court dismissed the writ petition by the judgment dated 24.06.2025. Paragraph 12 of that judgment reads thus:
"12. In the counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4, the possession of the documents mentioned in the writ petition is denied. On going through the pleadings in the writ petition and counter affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4, we are of the view that the petitioner has approached this Court with some vague pleadings unsupported by documentary evidence. As noted in the judgments referred to in the preceding paragraphs, the prayer in the instant writ petition is not one falling under the category of cases wherein the writ of mandamus can be issued by this Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, we hold that no sufficient ground has been made out by the petitioner to allow the writ petition".
4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board and the 2025:KER:57738 6 RP No.969 of 2025 learned Senior Government Pleader.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that in Ext.P15 report dated 26.05.2012 submitted by the Munsiff of Haripad to the District Judge, Alappuzha, it is specifically stated that the records in O.S.No.43 of 1952 are missing and only a copy of the decree is available in the case records. The learned Munsiff opined that she is not sure whether the copy of the decree seen is the exact copy of its original. The respondents 1 to 4 omitted this portion of the report in their counter affidavit, and this Court relied on the portion of the counter affidavit while passing the judgment. Hence, there is an error apparent on the face of the record.
6. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for the Travancore Devaswom Board would submit that in paragraph 6 of the judgment, this Court considered the report of the learned Munsiff. Moreover, the request of the petitioner for a mandatory injunction was denied as it is against the settled position of law. It is further submitted by the learned Standing Counsel that there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment.
7. To understand the circumstances that entitle the Court 2025:KER:57738 7 RP No.969 of 2025 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.
8. 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."
9. 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, 2025:KER:57738 8 RP No.969 of 2025
(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 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."
10. It is trite that the power of review under Section 114 2025:KER:57738 9 RP No.969 of 2025 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.
11. In Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [(1980) 2 SCC 167] the Apex Court held that under the guise of review, a litigant cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.
12. 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) 2025:KER:57738 10 RP No.969 of 2025
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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".
16. Again in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd. [2024 SCC Online SC 1090] the Apex Court considered the 2025:KER:57738 11 RP No.969 of 2025 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 fulfillment 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
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
(iii) any other sufficient reason."
17. 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. If the direction in the judgment was erroneous, then the remedy was to challenge the same by filing an appeal and not by filing a review petition.
18. While going through the judgment in W.P.(C)No. No.13843 of 2023, of which review is sought by the petitioner, we notice that we have considered all the contentions raised by the 2025:KER:57738 12 RP No.969 of 2025 parties in detail. Paragraph 6 of that judgment reads thus:
"6. The grievance of the petitioner is that a copy of the registered document and the copies of the plaint, decree and judgment of a suit claimed by him as existed with the Travancore Devaswom Board, were not given to him by the Board, despite requested by him. According to the petitioner, the documents in the Sub Registrar's office are manipulated. However, while going through the pleadings in the writ petition, we notice that the averments regarding manipulations alleged by the petitioner are very vague. From Ext.P15 report filed by the learned Munsiff, Haripad, addressed to the District Judge, Alappuzha, on the the complaint filed by the petitioner herein regarding the missing of case records of O.S.No.43 of 1952, we notice that the said suit has no connection with the property mentioned by the petitioner. As per the report of the learned Munsiff, the plaintiffs in that suit are one R.K. Cheriyan and one Cheriyan Cheriyan, and the defendant is one Ayyavarkey. The nature of that suit appears as for the recovery of money. Therefore, the documents produced in support of the claim of the petitioner do not support his pleadings".
19. Ext.P15 report of the learned Munisff of Haripad, stated that the available records would show that the plaintiffs in O.S.No.43 of 1952 on the file of that Court are one R.K. Cheriyan 2025:KER:57738 13 RP No.969 of 2025 and one Cheriyan Cheriyan, and the defendant is one Ayyavarkey. The nature of that suit is one for recovery of money. Though the petitioner contends that O.S.No.43 of 1952 is not the one as reported by the learned Munsiff, he had not produced any material to accept his aforesaid contention. It was noting the circumstances under which a writ of mandamus can be issued by a Constitutional Court by exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, we passed the impugned judgment. Now in the review petition, the petitioner has filed I.A.No.1 of 2025, seeking reception of Annexure-A1 document, which is an order dated 30.03.2018 in an appeal filed by the petitioner under the provisions of Right to Information Act, alleging non issuance of copy of the report of the District Judge, Alappuzha, in a complaint filed by him. Annexure-A1 document was not produced by the petitioner in the writ petition. No relevancy is made out by the petitioner to receive that document in the review petition. Therefore, I.A.No.01 of 2025 stands dismissed.
20. On hearing the learned counsel on both sides and appreciating the materials on record, we find no sufficient reason 2025:KER:57738 14 RP No.969 of 2025 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 24.06.2025 passed by this Court in the writ petition. 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.
In the result, the review petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
2025:KER:57738
15
RP No.969 of 2025
APPENDIX OF RP 969/2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 THE ORDER PASSED BY THE STATE INFORMATION
COMMISSION, KERALA DATED 30.03.2018 IN
A.P.NO.2427(7)/2012/SIC