The unsuccessful respondent/plaintiff in the second appeal has preferred the above review.
2. The error that is pointed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the judgment is that there is no question of law formulated in the second appeal and that he did not get an opportunity to argue the case. However, it is seen that in paragraph No.5 of the judgment, the question of law has been formulated and after hearing both the parties, the judgment in review has been pronounced.
3. Merely because a concurrent judgment of the Courts below was reversed, a review cannot be entertained. The judgment sought to be reviewed must suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record. Unless such an error is pointed out, the finality attached to the judgment cannot be disturbed. Even if there is an error, unless it is self-evident, which can be detected only by a process of reasoning, it cannot be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. By exercising the power under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C., the Court cannot be asked to rehear and correct the decision to suit the review petitioner. A review petition is only for a limited purpose and the same cannot be treated as an appeal in disguise. As there is no error apparent on the face of the record, this review petition is liable to be dismissed.
4. In the result, this review petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.
To
1. The District Judge, Kanyakumari District.
2. The Principal Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil.
3.The Record Keeper, VR Section, Madurai Bench of Madras High Court, Madurai.
.