Kerala High Court
M.C. Nandan vs 1. The Trichur Urban Co-Operative Bank, ... on 9 September, 2025
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
R.P Nos.88 and 93 of 2025 2025:KER:66435
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 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA, 1947
RP NO. 88 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2024 IN WA NO.1211 OF 2024
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANT:
M.C. NANDAN,
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O CHATHUKUTTY, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO. 22,
BROTHER MISSION ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR
DISTRICT., PIN - 680125
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH
SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK, LTD NO. 87
MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
ITS GENERAL MANAGER IN CHARGE., PIN - 680001
2 THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE
THE TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, MISSION
QUARTERS, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENER., PIN - 680001
3 THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL
BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY., PIN - 695001
2
R.P Nos.88 and 93 of 2025 2025:KER:66435
4 THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT (NORTHERN),
KOZHIKODE, 5TH FLOOR, HOUSE FED COMPLEX, SHASTHRI
NAGAR, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY., PIN - 673006
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.D.DILEEP
SMT.SHYLAJA VARGHESE
SHRI.DHEERAJ PRADEEP C.
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 21.08.2025 ALONG
WITH RP NO.93 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 9.9.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
3
R.P Nos.88 and 93 of 2025 2025:KER:66435
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 9TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 / 18TH BHADRA, 1947
RP NO. 93 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 07.12.2024 IN WA NO.638 OF 2022
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:
M.C. NANDAN
AGED 60 YEARS
S/O CHATHUKUTTY, MADATHIPARAMBIL HOUSE, HOUSE NO. 22,
BROTHER MISSION ROAD, IRINJALAKUDA, THRISSUR
DISTRICT., PIN - 680125
BY ADVS.
SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH
SMT.K.P.GEETHA MANI
RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT/RESPONDENTS 2 TO 4:
1 THE TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK, LTD NO. 87,
MISSION QUARTERS, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY
ITS GENERAL MANAGER IN CHARGE., PIN - 680001
2 THE DISCIPLINARY COMMITTEE,
THE TRICHUR URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD, MISSION
QUARTERS, THRISSUR DISTRICT, REPRESENTED BY ITS
CONVENER., PIN - 680001
3 THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE TRIBUNAL
BAKERY JUNCTION, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, REPRESENTED BY
ITS SECRETARY., PIN - 695001
4
R.P Nos.88 and 93 of 2025 2025:KER:66435
4 THE KERALA CO-OPERATIVE ARBITRATION COURT (NORTHERN),
KOZHIKODE, 5TH FLOOR, HOUSE FED COMPLEX, SHASTHRI
NAGAR, ERANJIPALAM, KOZHIKODE, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY., PIN - 673006
BY ADVS.
SRI.C.D.DILEEP
SMT.SHYLAJA VARGHESE
SHRI.DHEERAJ PRADEEP C.
OTHER PRESENT:
SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 21.08.2025 ALONG
WITH RP NO.88 OF 2025, THE COURT ON 9.9.2025 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
5
R.P Nos.88 and 93 of 2025 2025:KER:66435
COMMON ORDER
Muralee Krishna, J.
The petitioner in these review petitions is the appellant in
W.A.No.1211 of 2024 and 1st respondent in W.A.No.638 of 2022.
He filed the respective review petitions under Order XLVII Rule 1
read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'
in short), seeking review of the common judgment dated
07.12.2024 passed by this Court in those writ appeals.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner and
the learned counsel for the 1 st respondent Bank.
3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner would
submit that while disposing of the writ appeals, this Court directed
the 1st respondent Bank to quantify the compensation to be
payable to the petitioner/appellant based on the formula laid down
by the Apex Court in O.P. Bhandari v. Indian Tourism
Development Corporation Ltd. and Others [(1986) 4 SCC
337]. The judgment in O.P Bhandari's case was rendered 38
years ago, based on the interest rate prevailing at that point of
time. In Smitha v. Kerala Co-operative Tribunal [2020 (5)
R.P Nos.88 and 93 of 2025 2025:KER:66435
KLT 575] a learned Single Judge of this Court modulated the said
judgment without deviation from the dictum laid down by the Apex
Court in O.P Bhandari, holding that the requsite years of salary
to ensure the benefit to an employee should be a minimum of 6.5
years with 7.5% interest from the date of termination of service.
If the computation is made based on O.P Bhandari, the petitioner
will get only Rs.7/- Lakhs at the place of Rs.10/- Lakhs awarded
by the learned Single Judge. Therefore, there is an error apparent
on the face of the record in the appeal judgment.
4. The 1st respondent has filed counter affidavits dated
08.04.2025 to the review petitions. The learned counsel for the 1 st
respondent would submit that there is no error apparent on the
face of the record, since the modifications ordered in the judgment
of Smitha [2020 (5) KLT 575] will not render the judgment in
the present case erroneous, subject to review jurisdiction.
5. To understand the circumstances that entitle the Court
to exercise it's 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 and that of this
Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant
R.P Nos.88 and 93 of 2025 2025:KER:66435
provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court
is concerned.
6. 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."
7. 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
R.P Nos.88 and 93 of 2025 2025:KER:66435
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."
8. 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
R.P Nos.88 and 93 of 2025 2025:KER:66435
(iii) any other sufficient reason.
9. 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.
10. 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)
11. 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
R.P Nos.88 and 93 of 2025 2025:KER:66435
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.
12. 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.
13. 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".
14. 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
R.P Nos.88 and 93 of 2025 2025:KER:66435
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."
15. 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.
16. The petitioner filed W.A.No.1211 of 2024 challenging
the judgment dated 16.11.2021 passed by the learned Single
Judge in W.P.(C)No.25640 of 2016, whereby Ext.P8 judgment
dated 23.06.2015 of the Kerala Co-operative Tribunal,
Thiruvananthapuram, was upheld, directing the 1st respondent
herein to grant compensation of Rs.10/-. Lakhs to the petitioner
within a period of 45 days from the date of receipt of a certified
R.P Nos.88 and 93 of 2025 2025:KER:66435
copy of the judgment. Challenging the judgment of the learned
Single Judge, the 1st respondent filed W.A. 638 of 2022. When
the writ appeals were taken up for hearing, the learned counsel
for the petitioner relied on the judgment of a Full Bench of this
Court in B.Preetha Kumari v. Joint Registrar of Co-operative
Societies (General), Thiruvananthapuram and others [2022
(6) KHC SN 8] to argue that in a case where the penalty of
dismissal was imposed in contravention of statutory mandate
contained in KCS Act and KCS Rules, reinstatement would be the
appropriate relief. The learned counsel further relied on the
judgment of O.P. Bhandari [(1986) 4 SCC 337] as far as the
formula provided in the said judgment for the calculation of
payment of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. But the learned
Counsel did not rely on the judgment of the learned Single Judge
in Smitha [2020 (5) KLT 575] while the appeals were
considered on merits. Now, after the disposal of the writ appeals
based on the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in O.P.
Bhandari [(1986) 4 SCC 337] the petitioner came up with
another argument in the review petitions, based on a judgment of
the learned Single Judge of this Court, which probably would have
R.P Nos.88 and 93 of 2025 2025:KER:66435
came to his notice after the appeal judgment. Moreover, while
going through the judgment in Smitha [2020 (5) KLT 575], we
notice that no principle is laid down in that judgment. The
deviation from O.P. Bhandari [(1986) 4 SCC 337] was made in
that judgment purely on factual aspects, which are not specifically
pleaded in the present case. Hence it cannot be said that there is
error apparent on the face of record in the judgment. The attempt
of the review petitioner appears as to use the review jurisdiction
as an appeal in disguise, which is not permissible under law.
Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and
the submissions made at the Bar, we find no ground to review the
judgment in the writ appeals.
In the result, the review petitions stand dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
sks
