[Cites 8, Cited by 0]
Kerala High Court
Rohinikutty vs State Of Kerala on 29 January, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
2026:KER:6543
1
R.P.No.1745 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF JANUARY 2026 / 9TH MAGHA, 1947
RP NO. 1745 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.11.2025 IN OP(KAT) NO.13 OF
2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT:
ROHINIKUTTY
AGED 54 YEARS
W/O LATE SAJEEVAN, CHACKALAI KIZHAKKETHIL,
MARUTHOORKULANGARA NORTH ALUMKADAVU P.O,
KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN - 690544
BY ADVS.
SHRI.RAVIVARMA V.
SRI.KISHOR B.
SHRI.REGHUVARAN R.
RESPONDENTS/PETITIONERS:
1 STATE OF KERALA
REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HEALTH AND
FAMILY WELFARE, GOVERNMENT SECRETARIAT,
THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695001
2 DIRECTOR OF HEALTH SERVICES
GENERAL HOSPITAL JN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN - 695035
3 THE DISTRICT MEDICAL OFFICER OF HEALTH
OFFICE OF THE DMO, 2ND FLOOR, CIVIL STATION, KOLLAM,
PIN - 695035
2026:KER:6543
2
R.P.No.1745 of 2025
4 THE SUPERINTENDENT
TALUK HEAD QUARTERS HOSPITAL, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM,
PIN - 690544
5 THE ASSISTANT ENGINEER
PWD BUILDING SUB DIVISION, KARUNAGAPPALLY, KOLLAM, PIN
- 690544
SRI.A.J. VARGHESE,SR.G.P
SRI.M.AJAY, SC
THIS REVIEW PETITION WAS FINALLY HEARD ON 22.01.2026, THE
COURT ON 29.01.2026 PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2026:KER:6543
3
R.P.No.1745 of 2025
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
respondent in O.P.(KAT)No.13 of 2018, seeking review of the
judgment dated 14.11.2025, passed by this Court whereby that
original petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned Ext.P3
order dated 10.04.2017 passed by the Kerala Administrative
Tribunal in O.A.No.1984 of 2015 and consequently, the original
application stands dismissed.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the
learned Senior Government Pleader.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that
this Court allowed the original petition on finding that the review
petitioner- respondent is not appointed in a sanctioned post. She
is not a contract employee, as observed in Ext.P3 impugned order,
and she is a casual sweeper. If a post of part-time sweeper was
created by the Government in the year 2005, the review
petitioner-respondent would not have been prejudiced.
4. On the other hand, the learned Senior Government
2026:KER:6543
Pleader would submit that there is only one post of part-time
sweeper available in the Taluk Headquarters Hospital,
Karunagapally. In the reply statement filed by the Government
before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal, the available posts are
stated. The petitioner-respondent is not appointed to a sanctioned
post. There is no error in the judgment dated 14.11.2025 passed
by this Court.
5. In order 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.
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
2026:KER:6543
(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
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.
(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
2026:KER:6543
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 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.
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
2026:KER:6543
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
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
2026:KER:6543
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 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."
15. 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
review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does
2026:KER:6543
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. 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 14.11.2025, it is clear that this Court considered the
contentions raised by the parties in detail by referring to the
materials placed on record. The arguments advanced by the
review petitioner-respondent in this review petition are the very
same contentions that she had taken in the original petition, which
was found against her on merits in the judgment dated
14.11.2025. In this review petition, the review petitioner-
respondent is again raising the very same contentions which were
decided against her on merits by this Court. By invoking the
provisions of review jurisdiction, the review petitioner cannot
agitate the very same cause that was already found against her.
In fact, in the review petition, no error apparent on the face of the
record or any other sufficient ground to exercise review
jurisdiction is pleaded.
2026:KER:6543
17. Having considered the pleadings and materials on
record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient
reason to hold that the review petitioner - respondent has made
out any ground provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section
114 of the CPC to review the judgment dated 14.11.2025 passed
by this Court in the original petition. The attempt of the review
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
2026:KER:6543
APPENDIX OF RP NO. 1745 OF 2025
PETITIONER ANNEXURES
Annexure A CERTIFIED COPY OF THE JUDGMENT DATED
14.11.2025 IN O.P ( KAT) 13 /2018
