K.RATHINDRAN Vs. PATHAPOYIL RAGHAVAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The review petitioners are the appellants in R.S.A.No.756 of 2019. The Second Appeal was dismissed by this Court at the admission stage, finding that no substantial questions of law arose. The petitioners have filed this review petition stating that this Court has committed an error in dismissing the Second Appeal, without issuing notice to the respondent. It is argued that hardship will be caused to the review petitioners if the right of way is provided to the plaintiff since it would divide their property into two. It is also sought to be contended that the plaintiff has no access to his property.

(2.) The scope for a review under Sec. 140 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Procedure, 1908 has been considered elaborately, recently, by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment in State of Telangana V. Muhammed Abdul Kazim [2024 SCC online SC 548]. The Court has held that the words 'as it thinks fit' cannot be interpreted to mean anything beyond what is conferred under Order 47 Rule 1. The Court further held that the words 'due diligence' though one of fact, places the onus heavily on the one who seeks a review. Paragraph 20 of the judgment is extracted for reference.

(3.) It can be seen from the law declared/reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that a decision, however erroneous, can never be a factor for review but can only be corrected in an appeal. It is further evident that being a creature of a Statute, there is absolutely no room for a fresh hearing in a review application and the Court has no role to involve itself in a process of adjudication for a second time. The role of the Court is merely to examine the existence of an apparent mistake or error. Keeping in view the contours of jurisdiction on a review petition, let me examine the case on record.