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
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
