Rince P. Sebastian vs The Manager
2026 Latest Caselaw 447 Ker

Kerala High Court

Rince P. Sebastian vs The Manager on 16 January, 2026

Author: Anil K.Narendran

Bench: Anil K.Narendran

                                          1
RP No.1538 of 2025                                               2026:KER:3397

                      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 16TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26TH POUSHA, 1947

                                 RP NO. 1538 OF 2025

            AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.10.2025 IN WA NO.162 OF 2023

OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA


REVIEW PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT:

                     RINCE P. SEBASTIAN, AGED 48 YEARS
                     HEADMASTER, MAR THOMA GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
                     THRISSUR, PIN - 680001

                     BY ADV DR.GEORGE ABRAHAM


RESPONDENTS/APPELLANT AND RESPONDENTS 2 TO 11:

        1            THE MANAGER, MAR THOMA GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL,
                     THRISSUR, PIN - 680001

        2            STATE OF KERALA
                     REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, GENERAL
                     EDUCATION DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM,
                     PIN - 682031

        3            THE DIRECTOR OF HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION
                     HOUSING BOARD BUILDINGS, SANTHI NAGAR, THYCAUD,
                     THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001

        4            THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
                     HIGHER SECONDARY EDUCATION, EDAPPALLY, ERNAKULAM, PIN
                     - 682024

        5            GLENDA PAUL VALIYAVEETTIL
                     PRINCIPAL-IN-CHARGE, MAR THOMA GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY
                     SCHOOL, THRISSUR, PIN - 680001
                                           2
RP No.1538 of 2025                                            2026:KER:3397



        6            MAJUSH.L.
                     AGED 43 YEARS
                     S/O LUKOSE KUNJUKUNJ, HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL TEACHER,
                     MAR THOMA GIRLS HIGHER SECONDARY SCHOOL, THRISSUR-
                     680001, (RESIDING AT 27A, T.K.V. NAGAR, KUTTANELLUR,
                     THRISSUR, PIN - 680014

        7            SELMA SEBASTIAN,
                     AGED 42 YEARS
                     W/O P.J. BINOY, PALLICKAMIYALIL HOUSE, OLLUR P.O.,
                     THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680006

        8            RAJI O.S
                     AGED 45 YEARS
                     ORANGAMPURATH HOUSE, AYYANTHOLE SOUTH, THRISSUR
                     DISTRICT, PIN - 680003

        9            SANDHYA RUPANI,
                     AGED 44 YEARS
                     PADIYIL HOUSE, KONIKKARA, THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN -
                     680306

       10            SERENE P. EDISON,
                     AGED 40 YEARS
                     PULIKKOTTIL HOUSE, KRIPA LANE, ULLAS NAGAR, ANCHERY,
                     THRISSUR DISTRICT, PIN - 680606

       11            BINCY THOMAS
                     AGED 47 YEARS
                     CHAKKITTAYIL, SOUHRADA NAGAR, NELLIKKUNNU, THRISSUR
                     DISTRICT, PIN - 680005



OTHER PRESENT:

                     SMT. NISHA BOSE, SR. GP;
                     SRI. LINDONS C.DAVIS FOR R6
                     SRI.JELSON J.EDAMPADAM


          THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 06.01.2026, THE
COURT ON 16.01.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
                                         3
RP No.1538 of 2025                                        2026:KER:3397


                                     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 by the 1 st

respondent in W.A.No.162 of 2023, seeking review of the

judgment dated 09.10.2025, passed by this Court in that writ

appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the

learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the learned counsel for the

6th respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that

the 5th respondent relinquished the post of Principal and the 6 th

respondent continues as Principal in charge from 13.11.2021

onwards. The Manager did not disclose the said fact before this

Court while filing the appeal. Believing the version of the

management, this Court allowed the appeal, declaring the 5 th

respondent as qualified to become Principal of the Higher

Secondary School. Therefore, the judgment was obtained without

presenting all the facts. From Annexure-E appointment order

dated 02.11.2021, it is clear that the 5th respondent was appointed

RP No.1538 of 2025 2026:KER:3397

with effect from 02.11.2021 by the management. After the

disposal of the writ appeal, management issued Annexure-G

communication to the 5th respondent appointing her as Principal

in Charge with effect from 13.10.2025, and she relinquished her

claim on the same date. Thereafter, Annexure-J appointment

order dated 30.10.2025 was issued to the 6th respondent to

defeat the claim of the review petitioner. The review petitioner is

entitled to become Principal at least from 26.03.2019 onwards.

Hence, the matter has to be reheard by setting aside the

judgment.

4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted

that Annexures-G to J documents now produced by the petitioner

are subsequent to the disposal of the writ appeal. Moreover, from

Annexure F order dated 12.11.2021 in W.P.(C)No.25167 of 2021,

it is clear that the order dated 28.10.2021 referred in Annexure E

appointment order is produced in that writ petition as Ext.P17.

Hence, there is no suppression of any fact from the side of the 1st

respondent. Moreover, Annexure-I document, which is a

statement of relinquishment produced by the petitioner, is not

even countersigned by the Manager. How the petitioner obtained

RP No.1538 of 2025 2026:KER:3397

that document is best known to the petitioner alone.

5. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent would submit

that the 6th respondent was appointed temporarily since the 5th

respondent relinquished her claim.

6. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit

that the present review petition is an appeal in disguise. Annexure

E document produced by the petitioner was issued on the basis of

the order dated 28.10.2021 of the Regional Deputy Director, which

was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.25167 of 2021. The remaining

documents, that is, Annexures-G to J, are subsequent to the

passing of the judgment and have no relevance as far as the

present review petition is concerned.

7. 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.

8. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus:

"114. Review-

RP No.1538 of 2025 2026:KER:3397

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,

(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 of 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.

RP No.1538 of 2025 2026:KER:3397

(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 review power 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.

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

RP No.1538 of 2025 2026:KER:3397

[(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)

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.

RP No.1538 of 2025                                           2026:KER:3397


         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

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], this Court, after considering the point, what

constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record held that

RP No.1538 of 2025 2026:KER:3397

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. We have appreciated the rival submissions made at the

Bar in the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned

judgments regarding review jurisdiction. From the judgment

dated 09.10.2025, it is clear that this Court considered the

contentions raised in the appeal in detail by referring to the

materials placed on record. Though the petitioner says that the 1st

respondent suppressed Annexure-E document at the time of

consideration of the writ appeal, Annexure-F order would show

that the document referred to in Annexure-E document was under

challenge in that writ petition, which led to Annexure-F order. The

remaining documents produced by the review petitioner are of the

period subsequent to the passing of judgment in the writ appeal.

On appreciation of the contentions raised by the petitioner, it is

only to be held that the present attempt of the petitioner is to

raise the contentions in the writ appeal once again by invoking the

review jurisdiction.

RP No.1538 of 2025 2026:KER:3397

Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and

the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient reason to

hold that the petitioner has made out any of the grounds provided

under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the CPC to review

the judgment dated 09.10.2025 passed by this Court in the writ

appeal. The attempt of the petitioner appears as to invoke the

review jurisdiction as an appeal in disguise. Therefore, the review

petition is liable to be dismissed.

In the result, the review petition stands dismissed.

Sd/-

ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE Sd/-

sks                               MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE

RP No.1538 of 2025                                      2026:KER:3397


                     APPENDIX OF RP NO. 1538 OF 2025

PETITIONER ANNEXURES

Annexure A              A    TRUE    COPY    OF    THE    PROCEEDINGS

NO.A5/8204/RDDE/HSE/2013 DATED 15/07/2013 OF THE 4TH RESPONDENT Annexure B A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN W.P.(C) NO.14466/2019 DATED 27/05/2019 Annexure C A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 03/09/2019 IN W.P.(C) NO. 23931/2019 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure D A TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 09/04/2021 IN W.P.(C) NO. 24596/2020 OF THIS HON'BLE COURT Annexure E A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 02/11/2021 Annexure F A TRUE COPY OF THE INTERIM ORDER IN W.P.(C) NO.25167/2021 DATED 12/11/2021 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE Annexure G A TRUE COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO.

MTGHSS/11-2025 DATED 13/10/2025 ISSUED TO THE 5TH RESPONDENT Annexure H A COPY OF THE COMMUNICATION NO. MTGHSS 10/2025DATED 13/10/2025 ISSUED TO THE PETITIONER Annexure I A TRUE COPY OF THE RELINQUISHMENT ISSUED BY THE 5TH RESPONDENT DATED 13/10/2025 Annexure J A TRUE COPY OF THE APPOINTMENT ORDER DATED 30/10/2025 ISSUED BY THE MANAGER IN FAVOUR OF THE 6TH RESPONDENT