Vasudevan Namboothiri, Krishnan Namboodiri, and Satheesan Namboothiri v. A.D. Parameswaran Namboothiripad; Guruvayur Devaswom Committee represented by its Chairman; Administrator, Guruvayur Devaswom; Guruvayur Devaswom

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** **PRESENT:** **THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.D.RAJAN** # **MONDAY, THE 23RD DAY OF JULY 2018 / 1ST SRAVANA, 1940** ## **RP.No. 220 of 2018** **AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN RFA 319/2016 of HIGH COURT OF KERALA** **DATED 18-09-2017** ## **REVIEW PETITIONER(S)/RESPONDENTS 4-6:** - **1 VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI,** - **S/O. KAKKATT MANAKKAL VASUDEVAN NAMBOOTHIRI, PULAMANTHOLE.P.O., MALAPPURAM DISTRICT.** - **2 KRISHNAN NAMBOODIRI, S/O. NEELAKANDAN NAMBOOTHIRI,** - **MALLISSERY PARAMBIL,GURUVAYUR, CHAVAKKAD.** - **3 SATHEESAN NAMBOOTHIRI,** - **S/O. ITTIRAVI NAMBOOTHIRI, PAZHAYATHUMANKKAL, PUTHENMPALLI, GURUVAYUR, CHAVAKKAD.** **BY ADV.SRI.M.P.ASHOK KUMAR** ## **RESPONDENT(S)/APPELLANT, RESPONDENTS 1-3:** **1. A.D. PARAMESWARAN NAMBOOTHIRIPAD,** - **S/O. NARAYANAN NAMBOOTHIRIPAD, ANDALADI MANA,** - **MARUDHUR.P.O., PATTAMBI, PALAKKAD DISTRICT.** **2. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM COMMITTEE REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN,GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **3. ADMINISTRATOR, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **4. GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM** - **THANTHIRI, GURUVAYUR DEVASWOM OFFICE, GURUVAYUR, THRISSUR DISTRICT.** **R1 BY ADVS. SRI.P.SANJAY** **SMT.A.PARVATHI MENON R2-R3 BY ADV. SRI.P.GOPAL** **THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 23-07-2018, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:** **RVS.** **RP.No. 220 of 2018** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER(S)' ANNEXURES:** **ANNEXURE RP(A) PROCEEDING OF THE DISTRICT COURT, THRISSUR IN OS - 05/2014 DATED 10/04/2015. ANNEXURE RP(B) PHOTOCOPY OF THE ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT IN SLP 31160/2017.** ## **RESPONDENTS (S)' ANNEXURES :** **NIL.** ## **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S. TO JUDGE** **RVS. 30/07/2018** ## **P.D. RAJAN, J. -----------------------R.P. No.220 of 2018 in R.F.A. No.319 of 2016 ---------------------------------Dated this the 23[rd] day of July, 2018** ## **O R D E R** This review petition is preferred against the judgment in R.F.A. No.319 of 2016. Review Petitioners are respondent Nos.4, 5 and 6 in the above R.F.A. The above appeal was filed against the judgment in O.S. No.5 of 2014 of the 3[rd] Additional District Judge, Thrissur by the plaintiff for declaration and mandatory injunction. The dispute was with regard to the selection of Melsanthi in Guruvayoor Sreekrishna Temple, which was dismissed by the trial court. Being aggrieved by that, the 1[st] respondent in this Review Petition filed R.F.A. No.319 of 2016. On 18.9.2017 the above appeal was allowed and the case was remanded to the Court below for disposing the matter afresh. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner contended that he obtained a copy of Annexure RP(a) only after the pronouncement of judgment by this R.P. No.220 of 2018 in 2 R.F.A. No.319 of 2016 Court. Even after exercise of due diligence, he could not produce the document showing the framing of issues by the Court below at the time of pronouncing the judgment. Hence the review petition. 3. Learned counsel for the 1[st] respondent contended that there is no error apparent on the face of the judgment. Even though it is recorded that issues were framed by the court below, no issues were framed by the trial court. 4. Before preferring this petition, the Review Petitioners filed a Special Leave to Appeal (c) No.31160/2017 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the Apex Court disposed SLP on 24.11.2017, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach this Court by filing a Review petition. Annexure RP(b) is the photocopy of the order of the Supreme Court in SLP 31160/2017. On the basis of this Review Petition, this Court directed the Third Additional District and Sessions Judge, Thrissur to verify and report whether any issues were framed in O.S. No.5 of 2014 on 10.04.2015 and 11.03.2016. When the ## R.P. No.220 of 2018 in 3 R.F.A. No.319 of 2016 appeal was heard by this court earlier, both parties admitted that no issues were framed by the trial court and the lower court dismissed the suit. After direction of the Supreme Court in the above SLP, this court informed the review petitioner to produce the “framed issues” dated 10.04.2015 by the III Additional District Judge, Thrissur and again summoned lower court records through special messenger. The additional District Judge III, Thrissur was directed to report whether any issues were framed on 10.04.2015, if so forward the same through a special messenger with a report to this court. 6. It is pertinent to note that, while disposing the appeal on 18.09.2017, this Court obtained the LCR and analysed the facts mentioned in RP(a) then it was found that no issues were found framed by the court below. It was written in the proceeding sheet that the issues were framed on 10.04.2016 and the concerned section of the Trial Court was directed to schedule pre trial steps and witness as on 20.05.2015. On 11.02.2016, it was further recorded that issues were already framed R.P. No.220 of 2018 in 4 R.F.A. No.319 of 2016 on 10.04.2015. This important fact was brought to the notice of this court at the time of hearing the appeal and in paragraph 5 of the judgment, it was recorded that “the case has not been decided by the lower Court on the basis of any issue”. It was further observed that “Framing of issues has a very important bearing in the trial and decision of a case. By framing issues each party fully knows the exact question to be tried in the suit, which guides the parties to lead evidence in that case. Therefore, settlement of issues bears an important role in the trial and decision of the case.” There is no error in the above observation. 7. An application for review of the judgment is possible under Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, CPC), which reads as follows: Application for review of judgment R.1 (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 R.P. No.220 of 2018 in 5 R.F.A. No.319 of 2016 (c) by a decision on a reference from a (K) 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 of 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.] ## 8. A reading of Order XLVII R.1 CPC shows that, the scope of such review is very limited and it may be allowed on three grounds namely; (i) discovery of new and important matter of evidence, which after the R.P. No.220 of 2018 in 6 R.F.A. No.319 of 2016 exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order was made, or (ii) some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or (iii) for any other sufficient reasons, which has been interpreted to be analogous to the other reasons specified above. Apex Court in **Raja Shatrunjit** v. **Mohammad Azmat Azim Khan and others [AIR 1971 SC 1474 (1476)] : [1971 (2) SCC 200]** held that; The words 'any other sufficient reason' in Order 47 of the Code mean a reason sufficient on grounds analogous to those specified immediately previously in that order. The grounds of review are the discovery of new matters or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at time when the decree was passed or order made. The review may also be asked for on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. Grounds for allowing review application prescribed, namely: (1) discovery of new and important matter, under certain circumstances, (2) mistake or error apparent on the face of record and (3) any other sufficient reason. ## 9. On a perusal of the grounds highlighted by ## the review petitioner, it is found that there is no discovery R.P. No.220 of 2018 in 7 R.F.A. No.319 of 2016 of any new or significant cause, there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of record or other sufficient reasons in this review petition. Hence, the Review Petition is dismissed accordingly. Sd/- **P.D. RAJAN, JUDGE** /True Copy/ P.A. To Judge NS