Smt. Rani Venugopal vs Mamitha
2025 Latest Caselaw 6465 Ker

Kerala High Court

Smt. Rani Venugopal vs Mamitha on 30 May, 2025

Author: Anil K.Narendran

Bench: Anil K.Narendran

                                             2025:KER:38370

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM

                           PRESENT

        THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN

                              &

         THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.G. AJITHKUMAR

   FRIDAY, THE 30TH DAY OF MAY 2025 / 9TH JYAISHTA, 1947

                    R.P. NO.138 OF 2024

JUDGMENT DATED 21.12.2023 ARISING FROM MAT.APPEAL NO.254 OF
2022 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/2ND APPELLANT:

         SMT. RANI VENUGOPAL
         AGED 62 YEARS
         W/O. DR. T.R. VENUGOPAL, THANDASSERY HOUSE',
         CHERUMUKKU, CHEMBUKAVVU, THRISSUR-680022.
         NOW RESIDING AT:- 9A4, HEERA VASTU HILLS, AAKULAM,
         SREEKARIYAM P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-,
         PIN - 695017


         BY ADVS.
         SHRI.TERRY V.JAMES
         SHRI.P.B.KRISHNAN (SR.)

RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:

    1    MAMITHA,
         AGED 44 YEARS
         D/O. RAJENDRA BABU, KUNNANTH AVEN VEETTIL,
         GANDHINAGAR, WEST NADA, GURUVAYOOR, CHAVAKKAD,
         THRISSUR, PIN - 680506

    2    RAJESH VIJAYAN
         AGED 54 YEARS
         S/O. DR. N. VIJAYAN, 'PRASANNA' INDIRA GANDHI
         ROAD, KOTTOOLY, KOZHIKODE,
         PIN - 673016

    3    ROY VIJAYAN
                                                2025:KER:38370
                               2
R.P. No138 of 2024
in Mat.Appeal No.254 of 2022

            AGED 55 YEARS
            S/O. DR. N. VIJAYAN,;PRASANNA'
            INDIRA GANDHI ROAD, KOTTOOLY, KOZHIKODE,
            PIN - 673016


     THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
30.05.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                                   2025:KER:38370
                                 3
R.P. No138 of 2024
in Mat.Appeal No.254 of 2022



                               ORDER

P.G. Ajithkumar, J

The 2nd appellant in Mat. Appeal No.254 of 2022 is the

petitioner. She seeks to review the judgment dated 21.12.2023

for which she filed this petition under Section 114 read with

Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

The petitioner contends that there are errors in the judgment in

Mat.Appeal No.254 of 2022 and it requires review.

2. The 1st respondent filed O.P.No.140 of 2012 and O.P.

No.2211 of 2012 before the Family Court, Thrissur. In O.P.No.

140 of 2012 she sought a decree directing return of gold

ornaments, money etc. said to have been given at the time of

and in consideration of her marriage. In O.P.No. 2211 of 2012,

she sought cancellation of a document. Both cases were

disposed of together by the Family Court as per the order dated

23.12.2021. Respondents in O.P.No. 140 of 2012 were directed

to return 332 sovereigns of gold ornaments or its market value

and various amounts claimed by the petitioner therein. Two

appeals were preferred. Mat.Appeal No.254 of 2022 was filed by

respondents No.3 and 4 in O.P. No.140 of 2012. Mat. Appeal 2025:KER:38370

R.P. No138 of 2024

No.256 of 2022 was filed by respondents No.3 to 5 in

O.P.No.2211 of 2012. This Court as per the common judgment

dated 23.12.2023 disposed of the appeals as follows:

"24. In the result,-

1) Mat.Appeal No.254 of 2022 is allowed in part as follows:-

i) the decree in O.P.Nos.140 of 2012 as against respondents No. 1,2 and 4 is confirmed; and

ii) the decree in O.P.No.140 of 2012 as against respondent No.3 is set aside;

2) Mat.Appeal No.256 of 2022 is allowed and the decree in O.P.No. 2211 of 2012 is set aside.

3) Parties have to bear their respective costs."

3. Respondent No.1 filed Special Leave Petition (C)

Nos.8996-8997 of 2024 before the Apex Court challenging that

part of the judgment exonerating the father-in-law from liability

and the order interfering with the decree of the Family Court

setting aside the sale deed in question. As per the order dated

29.04.2025 the Apex court dismissed the Special Leave Petitions.

On account of the pendency of the said SLPs, consideration of

this review petition has been kept in abeyance this far.

2025:KER:38370

R.P. No138 of 2024

4. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the

learned counsel for respondent No.1.

5. Two grounds urged in support of the plea for review of

the judgment in Mat.Appeal No.254 of 2022 are that non

consideration of the question, could the matter be decided

without the partnership as a party and that the question of

limitation was not addressed. The learned counsel for the

petitioner would submit that when this Court held that the 1 st

respondent was entitled to realise an amount of Rs.54,50,000/-

from not only the husband, but the petitioner as well, the reason

given thereof is that the said money was utilised for the purpose

of business of the partnership firm, M/s. Vijaya Realtors. It is

submitted that in view of the provisions of Order XXX Rule 1 of

CPC, the partnership firm should also be a party. But this Court

did not consider that question while granting a decree for

realising the said amount from the petitioner also, being a

partner.

6. It may be noted that such a question was not raised

ever before. It is further pertinent that the claim of the 1 st

respondent was not against the partnership firm. The definite 2025:KER:38370

R.P. No138 of 2024

contention and the finding of this Court as well as the Family

Court are that the money obtained by the husband was spent for

the purposes of partnership firm. Being the beneficiaries and also

the relatives of the husband, liability was fastened with the

petitioner. The firm was not thus sued. Therefore, the contention

of the petitioner in this regard is unsustainable. Moreover, that is

not an error requiring review coming within the provisions of

Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.

7. The 2nd contention is based on the assertions that

having the 1st respondent left matrimonial home as early as on

01.07.2008, O.P. No.140 of 2012 was filed beyond the period of

limitation. That also is a new contention raised in this review

petition. Moreover, despite the 1st respondent leaving the

matrimonial home, the marital relationship continued. The

divorce was only on 16.05.2015. Till then the husband and

relatives continued to be the trustees of the properties belonging

to the 1st respondent. When O.P. No.140 of 2012 was filed

during that period there cannot be a valid contention of bar by

law of limitation.

2025:KER:38370

R.P. No138 of 2024

8. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi [(1997) 8 SCC

715], the Apex Court held:-

"9. 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.""

9. In Shanti Conductors Private Limited v. Assam

State Electricity Board [(2020) 2 SCC 677], a three Judge

Bench of the Apex Court following Parsion Devi [(1997) 8 SCC

715] dismissed the review petitions holding that the scope of

review is limited and under the guise of review, the petitioner

cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions

which have already been addressed and decided.

10. Again, in Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through Legal

Representatives v. Vinod Kumar Rawat [(2021) 13 SCC 1], 2025:KER:38370

R.P. No138 of 2024

the Apex Court restated the law with regard to the scope of

review under Section 114 read with Order XLVII of CPC.

11. In Arun Dev Upadhyaya v. Integrated Sales

Service Limited [(2023) 8 SCC 11] the Apex Court reiterated

the law and held that:-

"35. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions."

12. Thus the law governing the question of review can be

summated as follows:-

(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

(iii) 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

2025:KER:38370

R.P. No138 of 2024

(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected."

(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."

(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. Viewed in the light of the aforementioned principles of law

laid, the conclusion is irresistible that the review petition is liable

only to be dismissed. Accordingly, this review petition is

dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K. NARENDRAN, JUDGE

Sd/-

P.G. AJITHKUMAR, JUDGE PV 2025:KER:38370

R.P. No138 of 2024

RESPONDENT ANNEXURES

ANNEXURE R1 True copy of the interim order dated 13- 05-2024 in Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (C) No(S) 8996-8997/2024 issued by the Honourable Supreme Court PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Order Copy of order dated 29.4.2025 in SLP[C] No. 8996-8997 of 2024