The review petitioners are the appellants in the above Regular Second Appeal and the respondents are the respondents therein. 2. The above R.S.A. is filed against the judgment in A.S.No.237/06 on the files of the Additional District Court, North Paravur, on appeal from O.S.No.162/1993 on the files of the Munsiff's Court, North Paravur. This review petition is filed mainly on the ground that the judgment suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and non-consideration of crucial facts, including the pleadings and evidences and is based on an erroneous appreciation of the facts and laws and judicial decisions cited by the review petitioners at the time of argument. It is contended that the conclusions and findings in the judgment are contrary to the law discussed in paragraphs-11 and 12 of the judgment. The interpretation of statutes and the decision in Mariam v. Choolan (1979 KLT 650) are erroneous and contrary to the law discussed therein. On the discussions in paragraphs 11 and 12, the Court ought to have held that even if Paily had died prior to the commencement of the Land Reforms Act, his right as a 'Kudikidappukaran' entitled to fixity of tenure would still devolve upon all his legal heirs together and not upon one among them. The court below went wrong in interpreting the definition of “person” envisaged in Sec.2(43) of the Land Reforms Act. The court below went wrong in disallowing I.A.No.923/2014 filed for receiving the death and burial certificate of late Paily. The death certificate produced by the petitioners in the Second Appeal ought to have been received as additional evidence.
3. In view of the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Review Petition, I am of the opinion that the first question to be considered is whether this review petition is maintainable in view of the grounds raised above.
4. In Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury [(1995) 1 SCC 170], the Supreme Court while considering the scope and extent of the power under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC, held as follows:
“The review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1. The review petition has to be entertained only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. An error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. The limitation of powers of court under Order 47 Rule 1 is similar to the jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking review of the orders under Art.226.”
5. In M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Ltd., v.
Government of Andhra Pradesh, represented by Dy. Commissioner of Commercial Taxes (AIR 1964 SC 1372), the Supreme Court held that:
“A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is rebuilt and corrected, but lies only for a correction of an apparent error.”
Again in Lily Thomas v. Union of India (AIR 2000 SC 1650), the Apex Court has reiterated the above legal position and once again held that “the review is by no means an appeal in disguise”. So, in view of the legal position, let us examine the grounds raised in the instant case.
6. Apparently, I find that even though in the Memorandum of Regular Second Appeal it is stated that there is error apparent on the face of the record, going by the grounds raised, I find that the review petitioners have failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. It is the case of the review petitioners that the interpretation of the statutes in the decision in Mariam v. Choolan (1979 KLT 650) is erroneous. So also, conclusions and findings in the judgment are contrary to the law discussed in paragraphs-11 and 12 of the judgment. The court ought to have allowed I.A. No.923/2014 filed for receiving the death and burial certificate of late Paily in the R.S.A.
7. On an analysis of the grounds, I find that all these grounds are based on erroneous appreciation of evidence, for which review is impermissible. The review petitioners have miserably failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record or any other ground warranting review of the earlier findings. The grounds raised in the Memorandum of Review Petition are not errors that would strike one on mere looking at the record and require long drawn process of reasoning on points. In short, this review petition is an appeal in disguise. Therefore, I am inclined to dismiss this review petition and this review petition is dismissed accordingly.
Sd/-
Nan/ (K. HARILAL, JUDGE) //true copy// P.S. to Judge