[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Sree Kollakal Poroor Madom Devi ... vs 1. Kadasseri Munnila Nss Karayogam No. ... on 16 January, 2026
Author: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
Bench: V Raja Vijayaraghavan
2026:KER:3208
R.P.No.43/2026 in WP(C) Nos.44400/2025 & 41831/2025
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K. V. JAYAKUMAR
TH
FRIDAY, THE 16 DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 26TH POUSHA, 1947
RP NO. 43 OF 2026
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 08.12.2025 IN WP(C) NO.44400 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/REVIEW PETITIONER/5TH RESPONDENT:
SREE KOLLAKAL POROOR MADOM DEVI KSHETHRAM ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, AGED 62 YEARS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT, MURALEEDHARAN.G.,
SOPANAM, MUTHUKULAM NORTH, CHOOLATHERUVU P. O,
ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690506
BY ADVS.
SRI.T.S.HARIKUMAR
SRI.P.B.SAHASRANAMAN
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONER & RESPONDENTS 1 TO 4 & 6 TO 9:
1 KADASSERI MUNNILA NSS KARAYOGAM NO. 1062
AGED 57 YEARS, MUTHUKULAM NORTH, CHOOLATHERUVU P. O.,
REPRESENTED BY IS PRESIDENT, R. JAYAPRAKASH,
S/O RAGHAVAN PILLAI, AMBADIYIL, MUTHUKULAM NORTH,
CHEPPAD P. O, ALAPPUZHA, PIN - 690507
2 SREE KOLLAKAL POROOR MADOM DEVI (IDOL)
REPRESENTED BY ITS NEXT FRIEND THE SUB GROUP OFFICER,
TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, PANDAVARKAVU DEVASWOM,
MUTHUKULAM P. O., ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 690506
2026:KER:3208
R.P.No.43/2026 in WP(C) Nos.44400/2025 & 41831/2025
2
3 TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD, REPRESENTED BY ITS
SECRETARY, DEVASWOM HEAD QUARTERS, NANDANCODE,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695003
4 THE DEVASOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE DEVASWOM BOARD,
DEVASOM HEADQUARTERS, NANTHANCODE, KOWDIAR,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN., PIN - 695003
5 THE ASSISTANT DEVASWOM COMMISSIONER, TRAVANCORE
DEVASWOM BOARD, HARIPAD GROUP, HARIPAD,
ALAPPUZHA-690514
6 ANIL. C, AGED 60 YEARS, S/O CHELLAPPAN, SECRETARY,
SREE KOLLAKAL POROOR MADOM DEVI KSHETHRAM ADVISORY
COMMITTEE, RESIDING AT PADANAPARAMBI MUTHUKULAM
NORTH, CHOOLATHERUVU P. O, ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 690506
7 K.G. RADHAKRISHNA PILLAI, 'SREESAILAM', MUTHUKULAM
NORTH CHOOLATHERUVU P.O, ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 690506
8 SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF SUPERINTENDENT OF
POLICE, CIVIL STATION WARD, ALAPPUZHA., PIN - 688001
9 THE STATION HOUSE OFFICER, KANAKAKUNNU POLICE
STATION, VELANCHIRA, PATTOLI MARKET PO, ALAPPUZHA,
KERALA., PIN - 690531
BY ADVS.
SRI.B.HARISH KUMAR
SMT.KRISHNAPRIYA C.R.
SRI. G BIJU, SC, TDB
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 15.01.2026, THE
COURT ON 16.01.2026 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:3208
R.P.No.43/2026 in WP(C) Nos.44400/2025 & 41831/2025
3
ORDER
This Review Petition is preferred under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w
Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to review the common
judgment of this Court dated 08.12.2025 in W.P(C) Nos.44400/2025 and
41831/2025.
2. The review petitioner herein is the 5th respondent in WP(C).
No. 44400/2025. The review petitioner states that he has filed a detailed
counter-affidavit in the writ petition, contending that there is only one
Jeevatha for the temple, which was dedicated by the devotees and has been
in continuous use for temple festivals for the last several years. It is further
submitted that the Jeevatha, said to have been constructed by nine families,
has not been surrendered despite specific directions of this Court in WP(C)
No.37398/2016 dated 01.12.2016 (Annexure-A1).
3. It is further stated in the review petition that the old Jeevatha
available in the temple is one dedicated by the devotees and that alone could
be used for all temple festival rituals, including the Para Eduppu.
4. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that
the impugned judgment was passed without noting the directions contained
in Annexure-A1 judgment dated 01.12.2016 and against the directions
issued by this Court in WP(C) No.2614/2016 dated 12.02.2025.
5. According to the learned counsel for the review petitioner,
there are errors apparent on the face of record and therefore, the impugned
2026:KER:3208
R.P.No.43/2026 in WP(C) Nos.44400/2025 & 41831/2025
4
judgment is to be reviewed.
6. Heard.
7. Before we proceed with the discussion, it would be useful to
extract Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
"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 the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or
2026:KER:3208
R.P.No.43/2026 in WP(C) Nos.44400/2025 & 41831/2025
5
modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any
other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such
judgment."
"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."
8. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi1, the Apex Court held as
under:
" 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'."
(1997) 8 SCC 715
2026:KER:3208
R.P.No.43/2026 in WP(C) Nos.44400/2025 & 41831/2025
6
9. In S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan2, the Apex
Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise. The power of
review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, not to substitute a
view; such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing
with the exercise of power.
10. In Malleeswari v. K. Suguna3, the Apex Court observed that
the power of review is different from appellate power and is subject to
certain limitations. Review is not to be confused with appellate powers,
which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors
committed by the Subordinate Court.
11. In Malleeswari (supra), the Apex Court observed that the
power to review a judgment cannot be equated with the appellate powers.
In S. Murali Sundaram (supra), the Apex Court declared that review is
not an appeal in disguise. The power of review can be exercised for the
correction of the mistake and not to substitute a view.
12. In view of the dictum referred to above, it is clear that the
Review Court cannot sit as an Appellate Court. This court, by judgment
dated 08.12.2025, has considered the various aspects of the matter and
arrived at a conclusion. The review petitioner herein is trying to reagitate
the matter, which is impermissible. We do not find any error apparent on
the face of record to invoke the powers conferred on this Court under
(2023) 13 SCC 515
2025 KHC OnLine 6773
2026:KER:3208
R.P.No.43/2026 in WP(C) Nos.44400/2025 & 41831/2025
7
Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. On going through the
records, and on hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the
review petitioner, we find no merit in the review petition, and it is liable to
be dismissed.
The Review Petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
RAJA VIJAYARAGHAVAN V
JUDGE
Sd/-
K. V. JAYAKUMAR
JUDGE
Sbna/
2026:KER:3208
R.P.No.43/2026 in WP(C) Nos.44400/2025 & 41831/2025
8
APPENDIX OF RP NO. 43 OF 2026
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure.A.1. TRUE COPY OF THE JUDGMENT IN
W.P.(C).NO.37398 OF 2016, DATED
01-12-2016.
