R.Sasidharan vs Travancore Devaswom Board
2025 Latest Caselaw 2222 Ker

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

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

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

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

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

(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

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

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

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

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

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

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





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