IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS WEDNESDAY, THE 31ST MARCH 2010 / 10TH CHAITHRA 1932 RP.No. 1163 of 2009() IN A.S. NO. 637 OF 1997 --------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN AS.637/1997 .................... (O..S. NO. 1368 / 1991 OF II ADDL. SUB COURT, THRISSUR) REVIEW PETITIONER: ---------------------- SRI. BALAN, S/O. VELLATTUPARAMBIL UNNI, PILAKKODE VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK. THRISSUR DIST BY ADV. SRI.BALAN (PARTY IN PERSON) RESPONDENT: --------------- IBRAHIM, S/O. PUTHENPEEDIKAYIL KUTTY HASSAN, PILAKKOD VILLAGE, THALAPPILLY TALUK, THRISSUR DIST. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 26/03/2010, THE COURT ON 31/03/2010 PASSED THE FOLLOWING: M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS, J. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - R.P.No. 1163 of 2009 in A.S.No. 637 of 1997 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Dated this the 30th day of March, 2010 O R D E R This Review Petition under Section 114 of C.P.C. is filed by the respondent/defendant in the above appeal. 2. Heard the petitioner in person and the learned counsel for the respondent/appellant. 3. The case of the plaintiff is that on 10.2.1990 he entrusted with the defendant, who is a goldsmith, 125 grams of old gold ornaments belonging to his wife for the purpose of re- making the same into new gold ornaments and the defendant promised to give back the gold ornaments within one week. The plaintiff enquired about it on 19.2.1990 and the defendant promised to give the new gold ornaments on 28.2.1990 and gave Ext.A1 letter showing that undertaking. R.P.No. 1163 of 2009 2 4. When the plaintiff was examined as PW1 he denied the case of the defendant that the plaintiff manipulated the letter '1' in Ext. A1 before the figure '25' and converted the same as '125'. According to the defendant, Ext.B2 is a book kept by him in connection with his work as a goldsmith. This court, on appreciating the evidence on record, came to the conclusion that the case of the plaintiff is more probable. The review petitioner submitted that this court went wrong in accepting Ext.A1 and rejecting Ext.B2. 5. It is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by a court is final and departure from the principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. Review of a judgment is permissible only if error is patent and apparent on the face of the record. As there is no error apparent on the face of the R.P.No. 1163 of 2009 3 record in the judgment, this Review Petition is liable to be dismissed, as it is without any merit. 6. Accordingly this Review Petition is dismissed. There is no order as to cost. (M.L. JOSEPH FRANCIS) Judge tm