Kerala High Court
Somarajan Nair K.R vs The Authorized Officer on 2 July, 2026
Author: Anil K.Narendran
Bench: Anil K.Narendran
1
R.P.No.1749 of 2025
2026:KER:48609
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL K.NARENDRAN
&
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALEE KRISHNA S.
THURSDAY, THE 2ND DAY OF JULY 2026 / 11TH ASHADHA, 1948
RP NO. 1749 OF 2025
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 19.08.2025 IN WA NO.30 OF 2025
OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
REVIEW PETITIONER/APPELLANTS:
1 SOMARAJAN NAIR K.R, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O. RAGHAVAN NAIR,
KOCHIPARAMPIL HOUSE, KOTHALA. P.O., KOTTAYAM DISTRICT,
PIN - 686502
2 DHANYAKUMARI. M.R., AGED 53 YEARS, W/O. SOMARAJAN
NAIR. K.R., KOCHIPARAMPIL HOUSE, KOTHALA. P.O.,
KOTTAYAM DISTRICT, PIN - 686502
BY ADV SRI.M.NARENDRA KUMAR
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS:
1 THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER, KERALA STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK
LTD., PALLICKATHODU BRANCH, ANICKADU. P.O., KOTTAYAM,
PIN - 686503
2 THE AREA MANAGER (VAIKOM), KERALA BANK, KERALA STATE
CO-OPERATIVE BANK, KOTTAYAM REGIONAL OFFICE, P.B. NO.
140, CENTRAL JUNCTION, KOTTAYAM, PIN - 686001
OTHER PRESENT:
SRI. ATHUL SHAJI
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON
02.07.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
2
R.P.No.1749 of 2025
2026:KER:48609
JUDGMENT
Muralee Krishna, J.
The appellants in W.A.No.30 of 2025 filed this review petition
under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC‘ for short), pleading that there is an
error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment dated
19.08.2025 passed by this Court in that writ appeal.
2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the
learned counsel for the respondents.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the
judgment dated 18.03.2022 passed by a learned Single Judge of
this Court in W.P.(C)No.8289 of 2022 is a consented judgment.
The said fact was not considered by this Court while passing the
judgment dated 19.08.2025 in the writ appeal.
4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondents would submit that the judgment dated 19.08.2025 in
W.A.No.30 of 2025 was passed by this Court, considering the rival
contentions of the parties. The challenge in that writ appeal was
against the judgment dated 27.11.2024 in W.P.(C) No.4550 of
2024. The issue decided in W.P.(C) No.4550 of 2024 was not the
3
R.P.No.1749 of 2025
2026:KER:48609
same issue that arose for consideration in W.P.(C) No.8289 of
2022.
5. In order to understand the circumstances that entitle
the court to exercise its power of review, it would be appropriate
to go through the provisions concerned as well as the law on the
point laid down by the judgments of the Apex Court, as well as
this Court. Section 114 and Order XLVII of CPC are the relevant
provisions as far as the review of a judgment or order of a Court
is concerned.
6. Section 114 of the CPC reads thus:
“114. Review-
Subject as aforesaid, any person considering himself
aggrieved-
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed by
this Code, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed by
this Code, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small
Causes, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court
which passed the decree or made the order, and the Court
may make such order thereon as it thinks fit.”
7. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus:
“1. Application for review of judgment.
(1) Any person considering himself aggrieved-
4
R.P.No.1749 of 2025
2026:KER:48609
(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
(c) by a decision on a reference from a 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 of 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 on 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.”
5
R.P.No.1749 of 2025
2026:KER:48609
8. It is trite that review power under Section 114 read with
Order XLVII of the CPC is available to be exercised only on setting
up any one of the following grounds by the petitioner;
(i) discovery of a new and important matter or evidence, or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or
(iii) any other sufficient reason.
9. In Northern India Caterers v. Lt. Governor of Delhi
[(1980) 2 SCC 167] the Apex Court held that under the guise
of review, a litigant cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue
the questions, which have already been addressed and decided.
10. The Apex Court in Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi
[(1997) 8 SCC 715] held thus:
“Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to
review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent
on the face of the record. 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. In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous
decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it
must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.
(Underline supplied)
11. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15
6
R.P.No.1749 of 2025
2026:KER:48609
SCC 534] the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on the
face of the record means that the mistake is self-evident, needs
no search, and stares at its face. Surely, review jurisdiction is not
an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the
matter on merits.
12. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati [2013 (8) SCC
320] the Apex Court laid down the following principles as far as a
review petition is concerned.
“16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of
review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
(A) When the review will be maintainable:-
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence
which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within
knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by
him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words “any other sufficient reason” has been
interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [AIR 1922 PC 112] and
approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v.
Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius and others [(1955) 1 SCR
520], to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least
analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same
principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur
Manganese and Iron Ores Ltd. and others [JT (2013) 8 SC
7
R.P.No.1749 of 2025
2026:KER:48609
275].
(B) When the review will not be maintainable:-
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough
to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original
hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error,
manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness
or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby
an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies
only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot
be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not
be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within
the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to
be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought
at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”
13. In Sasi (Dead) through LRs v. Aravindakshan Nair
and others [AIR 2017 SC 1432] the Apex Court held that in
order to exercise the power of review, the error has to be self-
evident and is not to be found out by a process of reasoning.
14. In Shanthi Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State
8
R.P.No.1749 of 2025
2026:KER:48609
Electricity Board and others [(2020) 2 SCC 677] the Apex
Court by referring to Parsion Devi [(1997) 8 SCC 715] held
thus:
“The scope of review is limited and under the guise of
review, petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and
reargue the questions, which have already been
addressed and decided”.
15. Again in Govt. of NCT of Delhi v K.L. Rathi Steels
Ltd [2024 SCC Online SC 1090] the Apex Court considered the
grounds for review in detail and held thus:
“Order XVLII does not end with the circumstances as S.114,
CPC, the substantive provision, does. Review power under
S.114 read with Order XLVII, CPC is available to be
exercised, subject to fulfillment of the above conditions, on
setting up by the review petitioner any of the following
grounds:
(i) discovery of new and important matter or evidence; or
(ii) mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or
(iii) any other sufficient reason.”
16. In Sujatha Aniyeri v. Kannur University [2025 KHC
OnLine 212], in which both of us are parties, after considering
the point, what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the
record, this court held that review jurisdiction is not an appeal in
9
R.P.No.1749 of 2025
2026:KER:48609
disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on
the merits. If the direction in the judgment was erroneous, then
the remedy was to challenge the same by filing an appeal and not
by filing a review petition.
17. Keeping in mind the above principles, let us consider
the review petition filed by the petitioners herein. From the
judgment dated 19.08.2025, it is evident that we considered the
merit of the rival contentions raised by the parties and dismissed
the writ appeal, concurring with the finding of the learned Single
Judge. Paragraphs 17, 18 and the last paragraph of that judgment
read thus;
“17. From the pleadings and materials on record, it is
evident that the loans of the appellants were converted into
NPA,and the respondents proceeded against the secured
asset under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. If the
appellants have any grievance against the initiation of
proceedings under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act, then
the remedy available to them is to approach the Debts
Recovery Tribunal under Section 17 of the SARFAESI Act.
The appellants have not made out any special
circumstances to approach this Court with the writ petition
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India without
approaching the Debts Recovery Tribunal, before which the
statutory remedy is provided to the appellants.
10
R.P.No.1749 of 2025
2026:KER:48609
18. Having considered the pleadings and material on record
and the submission made at the Bar in the light of
judgments referred to supra, we find no reason to interfere
with the impugned judgment of the learned Single Judge.
In the result, the writ appeal stands dismissed.”
18. From the above extracted portion of the judgment dated
19.08.2025 in W.A.No.30 of 2025, it is evident that the challenge
raised by the petitioners in that writ petition is against the
proceedings initiated by the respondents against the secured asset
under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act. The contentions of the
parties dealt in the judgment dated 19.08.2025 in W.A.No.30 of
2025 would make it further clear that the circumstances under
which the respondents proceeded against the secured asset under
the provisions of the SARFAESI Act after the judgment dated
18.03.2022 in W.P.(C)No.8289 of 2022 were also considered by
this Court while passing that judgment. According to the
respondents, it was the non-payment of subsequent monthly
instalments, which was not dealt in the judgment dated
18.03.2022 in W.P.(C)No.8289 of 2022, is the reason for
subsequent proceedings initiated by them against the secured
asset under the provisions of the SARFAESI Act.
11
R.P.No.1749 of 2025
2026:KER:48609
19. Having considered the grounds for review stated in the
present review petition and the submissions made at the Bar, we
find absolutely no ground to hold that the judgment dated
19.08.2025 in W.A.No.30 of 2025 is suffering from any error
apparent on the face of the record. The attempt of the petitioners
is only to re-agitate the issue already found against them by using
the review jurisdiction as an appeal in disguise.
In the result, the review petition stands dismissed.
Sd/-
ANIL K.NARENDRAN, JUDGE
Sd/-
sks MURALEE KRISHNA S., JUDGE
