Guruvayur Devaswom v. Venugopal T.K.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT: THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.RAMACHANDRA MENON & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V. THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF AUGUST 2018 / 11TH SRAVANA, 1940 ## **RP.No. 430 of 2018 IN WPC. 20219/2017** AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WP(C) 20219/2017 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA DATED 31-01-2018 REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT IN W.P.(C) GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAUR-680101, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADMINISTRATOR. BY ADV.SRI.P.GOPAL RESPONDENT/PETITIONER IN THE W.P.(C): VENUGOPAL T.K., ASSISTANT ENGINEER(ELECTRICAL), GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR-680101. R BY SRI.A.JAYASANKAR THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.07.2018, THE COURT ON 02-08-2018, PASSED THE FOLLOWING: ## **P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON & SHIRCY V.,JJ. ==============================** ## **R.P.No. 430 of 2018** ## **in** ## **W.P.(C)No. 20219 of 2017** ## **==============================** ## **Dated this the 2[nd] day of August, 2018 O R D E R** ## **Shircy V., J.** The writ petitioner/ Guruvayoor Devaswom aggrieved by the direction in the judgment dated 31[st] January 2018 in W.P(C)No.20219 of 2017, to bifurcate and separate the responsibility to do the maintenance works of the water supply wing from the Electrical Section of the Devaswom, has filed this review petition. 2. The learned counsel for the Guruvayoor Devaswom has submitted that the functioning of the electrical and the water supply wing is treated as a single unit after coming into force of Act 1978 and there is only a common store for supply of materials and it is functioning under the RP 430/2018 2 supervision of one store keeper. Materials required for repairing works have to be reported to the store keeper through the Assistant Engineer (Electrical). He has only to verify the work done by the plumbing inspectors for recommending bills. If maintenance/repairing works of electrical wing and water supply wing are bifurcated, that would create difficulties in claiming materials required for the staff and to get the bill sanctioned. He further argued that more over if the said direction is complied with, the Devaswom Board will have to meet additional expenditure by appointing additional staff for water supply works. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the Devaswom as well the learned counsel for the respondent/petitioner. 4. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC relates to power of the Court to review its Judgment, which reads as follows: “1. **Application for review of judgment** – (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- - (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is RP 430/2018 3 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 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 RP 430/2018 4 be a ground for the review of such judgment.] 5. The scope of review jurisdiction has been considered by the Apex Court and this Court in so many cases and the law on this point is well settled. Some of the decisions in which the scope of review has elaborately considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court are referred hereunder: 6. In **M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh represented by the Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, [AIR 1964 (SC 1372)],** it is observed as follows: “A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice for us to say that where without any elaborate argument one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face, and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be made RP 430/2018 5 out.” ## _7. In_ _**Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury**_ _**[AIR 1995 SC 455],**_ it was held that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. ## 8. In _**Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and others [(1997) 8 SCC 715],**_ it was 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”. RP 430/2018 6 ## 9. In _**N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria and others [(2013) 15 SCC 534]**_ it was observed as follows: “The review jurisdiction is extremely limited and unless there is mistake apparent on the face of the record the order/judgment does not call for review. The mistake apparent on 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.” ## 10. In **Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and Others** ## **[ (2013) 8 SCC 320],** the following observation was made in paragraph 17: “ In a review petition, it is not open to the Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Conclusion arrived at on appreciation of evidence cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto.” 11. Applying the settled principles of review jurisdiction referred in the above decisions, we find no glaring mistake or grave error on the face of the record RP 430/2018 7 leading to miscarriage of justice to exercise the review jurisdiction. It is important to note that the intervention of this Court in the matter of administration of Devaswom was made because, an urgent and comprehensive review of the existing arrangements was found inevitable. In fact, objective evaluation of technical experts is imperative to ensure the effective, proper and smooth functioning of both the departments. The convenience and interest of all concerned, are also relevant. 12. Here, it is also to be noted that the Devaswom along with this Petition has produced certain new documents (seven in number) for consideration, though discovery of new evidence is not a good ground for review. But, the petitioner has no case that even after due diligence it could not produce those documents or those documents were not within its' knowledge at that point of time. Therefore, production of new materials at this distance of time, at any rate, also cannot be a ground to exercise review RP 430/2018 8 jurisdiction treating it as an error apparent on the face of the record. In short, we find that this petition does not disclose any ground to exercise the review jurisdiction and hence, interference is declined and the petition stands dismissed. However, we grant a further period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order to comply with the direction . **Sd/-** **P. R. RAMACHANDRA MENON JUDGE** **Sd/-** **SHIRCY V.** **JUDGE** **ks.** True copy P.S.To Judge RP 430/2018 9 RP 430/2018 10