RP.No.1032 of 2019 in OP(C). 2364/2018

**RP.No.1032 OF 2019** **IN OP(C). 2364/2018** **1** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE SHIRCY V.** **MONDAY, THE 04TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 / 13TH KARTHIKA, 1941 RP.No.1032 OF 2019 IN OP(C). 2364/2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN OP(C) 2364/2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA** ## **REVIEW PETITIONERS/PETITIONERS 2 AND 3/DEFENDANTS 3 AND 4:** |**1**|**N.V.MATHEW**| |---|---| ||**AGED 60 YEARS**| ||**S/O.VARGHESE, RESIDING AT NEELANAL HOUSE,**| ||**VETTITHARA KARA, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA**| ||**TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 308**| |**2**|**WILSON P.A,**| ||**AGED 50 YEARS**| ||**S/O. ABRAHAM, RESIDING AT PARAPUZHAYIL HOUSE,**| ||**VETTITHARA KARA, MANEED VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA**| ||**TALUK, RAMAMANGALAM ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 686 663**| **BY ADV. SRI.G.SREEKUMAR (CHELUR)** ## **RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENT AND 1ST PETITIONER/PLAINTIFF AND 2ND DEFENDANT** |**1**|**FR.BINOY JOHN**| |---|---| ||**AGED 46 YEARS**| ||**S/O. P P YPHANNAN, PATTAKUNNEL HOUSE, KALAMPOOR**| ||**P.O, KALAMPOOR KARA, PIRAVOM VILLAGE, MUVATTUPUZHA**| ||**TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT, PIN 686 610**| |**2**|**FR. PHILIP VARGHESE,**| ||**AGED 60 YEARS**| ||**S/O. VARGHESE, VADAKEPARAMBIL HOUSE, KUMARAKOM**| ||**KARA, KUMARAKOM VILLAGE, KOTTAYAM TALUK, KOTTAYAM**| ||**DISTRICT, NOW RESIDING AT VADAKEPARAMBIL HOUSE,**| ||**POOTHRIKA KARA, IKARANADU SOUTH VILLAGE,**| ||**KUNNATHUNAD TALUK, ERNAKULAM DISTRICT 682 308**| ## **OTHER PRESENT:** **P MARTIN JOSE** **RP.No.1032 OF 2019** **IN OP(C). 2364/2018 2** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 04.11.2019, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **RP.No.1032 OF 2019** **IN OP(C). 2364/2018** **3** ## **ORDER** The review petitioners are the petitioners 2 and 3 in OP(C)No.2364 of 2018/defendants 2 and 3 in O.S.No.61/2018 on the file of the Munsiff Court, Muvattupuzha. The respondent herein has filed the suit along with an I.A for temporary injunction. That I.A. was disposed of directing the parties to maintain status quo until disposal of the suit and the said order was challenged in CMA 13/2018 before the sub court, Muvattupuzha. The learned Sub Judge allowed the appeal and set aside the order under challenge. The said judgment was challenged in O.P(C) No2364/2018. The said O.P was dismissed by an order dated 16.10.2019. The I.A filed along with the O.P(C) was also dismissed. **RP.No.1032 OF 2019** **IN OP(C). 2364/2018 4** 2. Now this petition is filed to review the said order and to restore the interim order passed in the Original Petition on 19.09.2018 by this court. ## 3. Heard both sides. 4. A perusal of the records would show that the Original Petition as well the I.A filed along with the Original Petition was dismissed by this Court in the wake of the decisions of the Apex Court in : K.S.Varghese and others v. Saint Peter's Church and Saint Paul's Syrian Orthodox Church and Others [(2017) 15 SCC 333], Baby C.J and Others v. Fr. Jiju Varghese and Others [2019 (2) KHC 692] and Fr. Isaac Mattammel Cor-Episcopa v. St.Mary's Orthodox Syrian Church [2019 (4)KLT 1(SC)]. 5. The scope of review jurisdiction has been considered by the Apex Court and this Court in so many cases and the **RP.No.1032 OF 2019** **IN OP(C). 2364/2018** **5** law on this point is well settled. 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 was 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 out.” In Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [AIR 1995 **RP.No.1032 OF 2019** **IN OP(C). 2364/2018** **6** 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. 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 **RP.No.1032 OF 2019** **IN OP(C). 2364/2018** **7** must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 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.” 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 **RP.No.1032 OF 2019** **IN OP(C). 2364/2018 8** 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.” 6. Applying the settled principles of review jurisdiction referred in the above decisions, I find no glaring mistake or grave error on the face of the record leading to miscarriage of justice to exercise the review jurisdiction. This court has already made it clear that if the order of status quo granted in this O.P is allowed to continue, it will amount to clear violation of the mandate of the decision of the Apex Court in K.S.Varghese's case as the main issue and dispute in controversy between the Patriarch faction and Catholicos faction has been finally decided in that case and held so, in the subsequent decisions of Apex Court referred to by this court. **RP.No.1032 OF 2019** **IN OP(C). 2364/2018 9** 7. Hence, this petition is only to be dismissed and I do so. But it is made clear that paragraph No.1 of the judgment dated 16.10.2019 sought to be reviewed is modified suo motu, incorporating the number of the original suit referred to, as 'O.S.No.17/2010 on the file of the 1[st] Additional District court, Ernakulam', for more clarity. (Issue corrected copy of the judgment to both sides) Dismissed. Sd/- 04.11.2019. SHIRCY V JUDGE smm **RP.No.1032 OF 2019** **IN OP(C). 2364/2018** **10**