IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN WEDNESDAY, THE 15TH JULY 2009 / 24TH ASHADHA 1931 RP.No. 666 of 2009(O) ------------------------------- AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.13699/2009 DATED 18/06/2009. .................... REVIEW PETITIONER/RESPONDENT: ---------------------------------------------------- ASHA KRISHNAN, AGED 35 YEARS, D/O.MEENAKSHIAMMA, SAI KRISHANA, THANNALLOOR MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK, REP BY POWER ATTORNEY, MEENAKSHIAMMA, AGED 64 YEARS, SAI KRISHNA,THONNALLOOR MURI, PANDALAM VILLAGE, ADOOR TALUK,PATHANAMTHITTA DIST. BY ADV. MR.N.N.SASI RESPONDENTS/WRIT PETITIONERS: ---------------------------------------------------- 1. BEENA AGED 35 YEARS, W/O.MANOJKUMAR, LAKSHMIVILASOM, BHARANIKKAVU THEKKUM MURI, MAVELIKARA TALUK, NOW RESIDING AT DEEPA BHAVAN, NJETTOOR MURI, KULANADA VILLAGE,KOZHENCHERY TALUK. 2. DILEEP KUMAR, AGED 35 YEARS, S/O.SIVANPILLAI, DEEPA BHAVAN, NJETTOOR MURI, KULANADA VILLAGE, KOZHENCHERRY TALUK, PATHANAMTHITTA. BY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 15/07/2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING: rs. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN, J. ------------------------------- R.P.NO.666 OF 2009 IN W.P.(C).NO.13699 OF 2009 () ----------------------------------- Dated this the 15th day of July, 2009 O R D E R The petitioner seeks review of the judgment dated 18.6.2009 rendered by this Court in W.P.(C).No.13699/2009, producing some documents as Annexures 'A' and 'B' contending that the findings entered on some questions considered by the court in the writ petition are not correct, and so much so, there is an error apparent on the face of the record warranting the review of the judgment. Among other circumstances, in the judgment rendered in the writ petition reversing the judgment of the court below, this Court has held that the statusquo order passed in respect of the subject matter in a lis which continued to be operative is binding on the petitioner and on the parties to that proceedings and that the judgment of the court below militated against the order of statusquo passed by a competent court. The suit in which a statusquo order was passed was filed not by the petitioner in the writ petition but by his predecessor, who later assigned RP.666/09 2 the land by sale deed to the petitioner is canvassed with reference to the documents produced as Annexures 'A' and 'B' to set up a case that the judgment passed by this Court suffers from an error apparent on the face of it, and, therefore, liable to be reviewed. The grounds set up for review, needless to point out, are bereft of any merit. An error which has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be stated to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Error contemplated under Rule 1 of Order 47 of CPC, is which is self evident on the face of the record and not an order which has to be searched out for scrutiny. Scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is limited and a reappraisal of the evidence on the record for finding out the error would amount to an exercise of appellate power, which is not permitted. An error apparent means an error which can be pointed out from the record and not by way of a fresh material. A review cannot be entertained as a means to correct the decision, even if it is erroneous, by rehearing but only where it is shown that there is a patent error. Under the guise of review, the correctness of a decision entered cannot be challenged inviting enquiry on the materials, which are not on record, to show that there is an error apparent in the order passed by the court. Error RP.666/09 3 apparent on the face of the record must be shown with regard to the record on which the decision was passed by this Court. An application for review with reference to fresh materials has to satisfy the mandatory requirements under the rule that the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge or could not have been produced at the time the order or judgment was passed by the party who seeks for its review. Review for the reason there is apparent error on the face of the record stands on an entirely different footing, and in such a case, no enquiry on the question of error canvassed is permissible with reference to fresh materials not already produced which gave rise to the order sought to be reviewed. The review petition is devoid of any merit, and it is dismissed. S.S.SATHEESACHANDRAN JUDGE prp