IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOMAS P.JOSEPH FRIDAY, THE 22ND OCTOBER 2010 / 30TH ASWINA 1932 RP.NO. 899 OF 2010() ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT IN WPC.30466/2009 DATED 30/06/2010 .................... REVIEW PETITIONER(S): RESPONDENTS ---------------------------------------------------------- 1. KIZHAKKUM KOZHUVAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,P.K.SURENDRAN,AGED 48 YEARS,S/O.RAGHAVAN MASTER,R/AT KIZHAKKAN KOZHUVAL,NILESHWAR VILLAGE,HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. 2. M.RAJAGOPALAN, AGED 48 YEARS, S/O.KUNHAPPA NAIR,PRESIDENT,KIZHAKKAN KOZHUVAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE, NILESWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK,KASARAGOD DISTRICT. BY ADV. SRI.KODOTH SREEDHARAN RESPONDENT(S): PETITIONER --------------------------------------------- ANIKKIL MANOHARAN NAIR AGED 47 YEARS,S/O.LATE ARAMANA KRISHNAN NAIR, R/ATKIZHAKKAN KOZHUVAL NILESWAR VILLAGE, HOSDURG TALUK, KASARAGOD DISTRICT. THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/10/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: THOMAS P.JOSEPH, J. ==================================== R.P. No.899 of 2010 in W.P(C) No.30466 of 2009 ==================================== Dated this the 22nd day of October, 2010 O R D E R Writ Petition was disposed of by me after hearing both sides by judgment dated June 29, 2010. While disposing of the Writ Petition it was observed that the trial court has to consider whether there is violation of Rule 100(5) of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules (for short, “the Rules”). That judgment is sought to be reviewed by the petitioner. According to the learned counsel Rule 100(5) of the Rules has no application and that it is Rule 102 which applies in which case the whole exercise of remand was unwarranted. Learned counsel for respondent contended that Rule 100(5) is applicable to the facts of the case and hence no review is required. 2. I must bear in mind that at the time the Writ Petition being argued there was no contention that Rule 100(5) has no application to the facts of the case and in the circumstances the matter was remitted to the trial court for fresh consideration. I R.P. No.899 of 2010 in W.P(C) No.30466 of 2009 -: 2 :- must also bear in mind that the trial court while disposing of I.A. No.2646 of 2008 had also made reference to Rule 100(5) of the Rules. Now there is a dispute whether Rule 100(5) is applicable or it is Rule 102 which is applicable to the facts of the case. When it requires a serious consideration of the relevant provisions to decide that issue, it cannot amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. By the expression “error apparent on the face of the record” what is meant is that on a mere look at the judgment or order must reveal the error in which case alone there is scope for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. If detailed arguments and consideration of the materials at depth are necessary that cannot be brought within the mischief of error apparent on the face of the record. In such a situation remedy for aggrieved party is by way of an appeal or other proceeding against judgment under review. However, having regard to the contentions raised by both sides I direct the trial court to consider the question whether it is Rule 102 or Rule 100(5) of the Rules which is applicable to the facts the case. But that need not deter the trial court from obtaining a report from the Advocate Commissioner as directed in the judgment of this Court. On obtaining such report court may consider whether it is Rule 100(5) R.P. No.899 of 2010 in W.P(C) No.30466 of 2009 -: 3 :- or Rule 102 which is applicable and pass appropriate orders notwithstanding the observation contained in the judgment sought to be reviewed as to the application of Rule 100(5) of the Rules. With the above direction Review Petition is disposed of. THOMAS P. JOSEPH, JUDGE. vsv