Kerala High Court
The Malappuram District Co-Operative ... vs Kerala State Co-Operative Employees ... on 19 August, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
R.P.No.402 of 2025 2025:KER:62161
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 19TH DAY OF AUGUST 2025 / 28TH SRAVANA, 1947
RP NO. 402 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 06.02.2025 IN WA NO.407 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
THE MALAPPURAM DISTRICT CO-OPERATIVE BANK
(NOW AMALGAMATED WITH THE KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE
BANK), REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER, PB NO. 8,
MANJERI ROAD, UPHILL, MALAPPURAM, PIN - 676505
BY ADV SHRI.P.C.SASIDHARAN
RESPONDENT/S:
1 KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE EMPLOYEES PENSION BOARD
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY., PIN
- 695014
2 EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION
SUB REGIONAL OFFICE, BHAVISHYANIDHIBHAWAN, PB NO.
1806, ERANHIPALAM P.O., KOZHIKODE, PIN - 673006
3 E.JAYAKUMAR
OORVARA, SANTHIGRAMAM, MANJERI, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
676121
4 C. BALASUBRAMANYAN
CHERUGOTTILL HOUSE, AANAMGAD P.O, MALAPPURAM, PIN -
679357
2
R.P.No.402 of 2025 2025:KER:62161
5 PREETHIKUMARI K.G
KARUMANKUZHIL HOUSE, KADANJERI P.O., MALAPPURAM,
BY ADVS.
DR.ABRAHAM P.MEACHINKARA, SC, EPF ORG.
SMT.JAYASREE K.P.
SHRI.JOHN JOSEPH
SHRI.M SASINDRAN, SC, KSCEPB
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 11.08.2025, THE
COURT ON 19.8.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
R.P.No.402 of 2025 2025:KER:62161
ORDER
Muralee Krishna, J.
The appellant in W.A.No.407 of 2024 filed this review petition
under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of the judgment dated
06.02.2025 passed by this Court in the writ appeal, claiming that
there is an error apparent on the face of the record in that
judgment.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the review
petitioner/appellant, the respective Standing Counsel for
respondents 1 and 2 and the learned counsel for respondents 3 to
5.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
in the judgment dated 24.11.2023 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C)No.7523 of 2023 the proceedings issued by the
Kerala State Co-operative Employees Pension Board ordering the
petitioner to pay a sum of Rs.15,34,235/- with 10% annual
interest being the arrears of employers' contribution in respect of
respondents 3 to 5 who were former employees of the Bank was
found as in order and thereby dismissed the writ petition.
R.P.No.402 of 2025 2025:KER:62161
Challenging that judgment, the petitioner filed W.A. No.407 of
2024. Concurring with the findings of the learned Single Judge,
this Court dismissed the writ appeal. However, this Court had
failed to note that the 2nd respondent has already transferred the
employers' contribution with accrued interest to the 1 st respondent
Board on 09.08.2024. The delay in transferring that amount was
on the part of the 2nd respondent and not on the part of the
petitioner Bank. The 2nd respondent is yet to transfer the
contributions relating to the remaining employees of the Bank.
Therefore, casting the liability to pay interest on the petitioner, for
the delay committed by the 2nd respondent, is without proper
appreciation of the materials on record. In the judgment, reliance
was placed on the remittance of a sum of Rs.1,08,97,662/- made
by the erstwhile Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank
towards interest on the pension fund arrears of 36 employees as
calculated by the 1st respondent in Ext.R1(a) order dated
26.11.2022. The said reliance placed in the judgment is also an
error apparent on the face of the record. The decision pertaining
to Thiruvananthapuram District Co-operative Bank was taken
pursuant to the meeting held on 04.08.2022 between the
R.P.No.402 of 2025 2025:KER:62161
representatives of the Co-operative Department and Pension
Board. Moreover, in the case Thiruvananthapuram District Co-
operative Bank, there was delay on the part of the Bank in
remitting the amount received from the Employees Provident Fund
Organisation to the Pension Board. But in the instant case, there
is no such delay on the part of the petitioner bank.
4. On the other hand the learned counsel for respondents 3
to 5 submitted that as per Clause 29 of the pension scheme the
petitioner Bank was required to transfer the employers'
contribution along with interest accrued from employees provident
fund to the pension fund within 1½ years from 30.06.2009, failing
which the Bank was liable to pay the defaulted amount with
interest at 24% which was later reduced to 10% compound
interest. The Petitioner Bank had not taken any steps to get the
amount transferred from the 2nd respondent Employees Provident
Fund Organisation to the 1st respondent Board within time. If the
delay is on the part of the 2nd respondent, the Bank ought to have
proceeded against the 2nd respondent. Due to the default by the
petitioner Bank, respondents 3 to 5 were compelled to remit the
employers' contribution with interest from their personal funds to
R.P.No.402 of 2025 2025:KER:62161
avoid delay in pension disbursal. There is no error in the judgment,
which was one rendered taking note of these facts.
5. The learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 2
maintained their stand that was taken in the writ appeal.
6. 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. 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."
R.P.No.402 of 2025 2025:KER:62161
8. 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
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
R.P.No.402 of 2025 2025:KER:62161
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."
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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
R.P.No.402 of 2025 2025:KER:62161
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)
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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
R.P.No.402 of 2025 2025:KER:62161
reargue the questions, which have already been
addressed and decided".
15. 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 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."
16. 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.
R.P.No.402 of 2025 2025:KER:62161
17. While going through the judgment in W.A.No.407 of
2024 we notice that the contention of the petitioner bank that it
had filed an application before the Employees Provident Fund
Commissioner to transfer the employers' contribution to the fund,
was taken note of by this Court and rejected that claim for the
reason that no evidence was produced from the side of the Bank
to show that the employers' contribution was transferred to the
fund which was credited to the Employees Provident Fund by it.
Now, from the contentions in the review petition and also from the
counter affidavit dated 05.08.2025 filed by the respondents 3 to
5 to the review petition, it is gatherable that the 2 nd respondent
transferred the amount to the 1st respondent on 09.08.2024.
There is an inordinate delay in transferring the amount. However,
as righty contended by the learned counsel for the respondents 3
to 5, the petitioner Bank could have taken legal steps against the
2nd respondent if the delay was really from the part of the 2nd
respondent, and if it was despite the earnest efforts of the
petitioner Bank. The respondents 3 to 5, as well as the 1 st
respondent, are sticking on the stand that the entire amount was
paid by the respondents 3 to 5 from their pockets, to avoid delay
R.P.No.402 of 2025 2025:KER:62161
in the disbursal of pensionary benefits. If the shortfall is from the
part of the 2nd respondent, then definitely the petitioner Bank is
entitled to proceed against the 2nd respondent in accordance with
law.
18. On appreciation of materials on record, and the
submissions made at the Bar, 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 06.02.2025 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
R.P.No.402 of 2025 2025:KER:62161
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A1 A TRUE COPY OF THE EMAIL COMMUNICATION DATED
14-02-2025 ISSUED TO THE BANK BY RESPONDENT
NO.2
Annexure A2 A TRUE COPY OF THE MINUTES OF THE MEETING
HELD ON 04.08.2022 ALONG WITH LETTER DATED
16.8.2022
RESPONDENT ANNEXURES
Annexure R3(a) A true copy of the letter dated 18.12.2020
issued by the petitioner Bank to the
Secretary of the 1st respondent Board
Annexure R3(b) A true copy of the representation dated
07.09.2024 submitted by the 3rd respondent
Annexure R3(c) A true copy of the representation dated
09.09.2024 submitted by the 4th respondent
Annexure R3(d) A true copy of the representation dated
09.09.2024 submitted by the 5th respondent
