The Kerala High Court has firmly reaffirmed that review jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure is not a second chance to relitigate decided merits. This judgment underscores the narrow, exceptional nature of review petitions and serves as a critical reminder to practitioners that procedural remedies must not be misused to circumvent appellate limitations.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The review petition was filed by Rohinikutty, a casual sweeper employed at the Taluk Headquarters Hospital in Karunagappally, challenging the High Court’s judgment dated 14.11.2025. That judgment had allowed her original petition under Article 226, setting aside an order of the Kerala Administrative Tribunal which had held she was not appointed to a sanctioned post and therefore not entitled to regularization.
Procedural History
- 2015: Original application filed by Rohinikutty before the Kerala Administrative Tribunal seeking regularization.
- 2017: Tribunal issued Ext.P3 order rejecting her claim, holding she was a casual sweeper without a sanctioned post.
- 2018: Original petition filed in the High Court under Article 226.
- 14.11.2025: High Court allowed the petition, holding that the post of part-time sweeper was created in 2005 and her service should be regularized.
- 2025: Review petition filed by the State challenging the 14.11.2025 judgment.
Relief Sought
The State sought review of the High Court’s judgment on the ground that it erred in holding that the petitioner was entitled to regularization. The petitioner contended that the judgment contained an error apparent on the face of the record and that the Court had overlooked material facts.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a review petition under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Order XLVII Rule 1 can be entertained when the petitioner merely reargues the same merits previously decided on evidence and law, without alleging a mistake apparent on the face of the record or new evidence.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant/State
The State contended that the High Court’s judgment erred in concluding that a sanctioned post existed in 2005, when official records showed only one part-time sweeper post was available and it was not filled by the petitioner. The State argued that the judgment failed to consider the Tribunal’s findings on the nature of her employment and that this constituted an error apparent on the face of the record. It further submitted that the Court’s reliance on the creation of a post in 2005 was factually incorrect and legally unsustainable.
For the Respondent/Petitioner
The petitioner argued that the High Court’s judgment was based on a misreading of the Tribunal’s order and that the Court had overlooked her long-standing service and the Government’s own admission of her role. She claimed the judgment contained an internal contradiction and that the Court’s reasoning was inconsistent with established principles of service law.
The Court's Analysis
The Court began by emphasizing that review jurisdiction under Section 114 and Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is an extraordinary remedy, not a substitute for appeal. It cited Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi, Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, and Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels Ltd to establish that review cannot be invoked to re-agitate questions already decided.
"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."
The Court held that the petitioner’s arguments in the review petition were identical to those already rejected in the original judgment. The alleged "error" - whether the post was sanctioned or whether her service warranted regularization - required re-examination of evidence and factual inference, which is impermissible in review.
The Court further noted that the petitioner had not pleaded any discovery of new evidence, nor had she demonstrated a clerical or manifest error in the judgment. The contention that the Court had misread the Tribunal’s order was a matter of interpretation, not an error apparent on the face of the record.
"Review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on merits."
The Court concluded that the review petition was an attempt to circumvent the finality of its judgment by relitigating the same issues under the guise of review.
The Verdict
The review petition was dismissed. The Court held that review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to reargue merits already decided, and that the petitioner failed to establish any ground under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The judgment dated 14.11.2025 stands affirmed.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Review Is Not a Second Appeal
- Practitioners must not file review petitions merely because the court rejected their factual or legal arguments on merits.
- If a judgment is perceived as erroneous, the remedy lies in appeal, not review.
- Any attempt to reframe a merits-based challenge as an "error apparent on the face of the record" will be summarily dismissed.
Error Apparent Must Be Self-Evident
- An error apparent on the face of the record must be obvious without requiring detailed analysis or external evidence.
- Examples include: a calculation mistake, misquoting a statute, or citing a non-existent provision.
- Disagreement with the court’s reasoning, even if strong, does not qualify.
Procedural Discipline Is Non-Negotiable
- Courts will scrutinize review petitions for signs of abuse of process.
- Advocates must clearly plead one of the three statutory grounds: new evidence, error apparent, or sufficient reason.
- Vague allegations of "miscarriage of justice" without specific legal or factual basis will not suffice.
