Muralee Krishna, J.

1. This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the 1st respondent in W.A.No.162 of 2023, seeking review of the judgment dated 09.10.2025, passed by this Court in that writ appeal.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent, the learned counsel for the 6th respondent and the learned Senior Government Pleader.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the 5th respondent relinquished the post of Principal and the 6th respondent continues as Principal in charge from 13.11.2021 onwards. The Manager did not disclose the said fact before this Court while filing the appeal. Believing the version of the management, this Court allowed the appeal, declaring the 5th respondent as qualified to become Principal of the Higher Secondary School. Therefore, the judgment was obtained without presenting all the facts. From Annexure-E appointment order dated 02.11.2021, it is clear that the 5th respondent was appointed with effect from 02.11.2021 by the management. After the disposal of the writ appeal, management issued Annexure-G communication to the 5th respondent appointing her as Principal in Charge with effect from 13.10.2025, and she relinquished her claim on the same date. Thereafter, Annexure-J appointment order dated 30.10.2025 was issued to the 6th respondent to defeat the claim of the review petitioner. The review petitioner is entitled to become Principal at least from 26.03.2019 onwards. Hence, the matter has to be reheard by setting aside the judgment.

4. The learned counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that Annexures-G to J documents now produced by the petitioner are subsequent to the disposal of the writ appeal. Moreover, from Annexure F order dated 12.11.2021 in W.P.(C)No.25167 of 2021, it is clear that the order dated 28.10.2021 referred in Annexure E appointment order is produced in that writ petition as Ext.P17. Hence, there is no suppression of any fact from the side of the 1st respondent. Moreover, Annexure-I document, which is a statement of relinquishment produced by the petitioner, is not even countersigned by the Manager. How the petitioner obtained that document is best known to the petitioner alone.

5. The learned counsel for the 6th respondent would submit that the 6th respondent was appointed temporarily since the 5th respondent relinquished her claim.

6. The learned Senior Government Pleader would submit that the present review petition is an appeal in disguise. Annexure E document produced by the petitioner was issued on the basis of the order dated 28.10.2021 of the Regional Deputy Director, which was under challenge in W.P.(C)No.25167 of 2021. The remaining documents, that is, Annexures-G to J, are subsequent to the passing of the judgment and have no relevance as far as the present review petition is concerned.

7. 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.

8. 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.”

9. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC reads thus:

                  “1. Application for review of judgment.

                  (1) Any person considering himself  aggrieved-

                  (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.”

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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)

13. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 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.

14. In Sasi (D) 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.

15. In Shanthi Conductors (P) Ltd. v. Assam State 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”.

16. 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.”

17. In Sujatha Aniyeri v. Kannur University [2025 KHC OnLine 212], this Court, after considering the point, what constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record held that review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise. The review does not permit rehearing of the matter on 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.

18. We have appreciated the rival submissions made at the Bar in the light of the principles laid down in the aforementioned judgments regarding review jurisdiction. From the judgment dated 09.10.2025, it is clear that this Court considered the contentions raised in the appeal in detail by referring to the materials placed on record. Though the petitioner says that the 1st respondent suppressed Annexure-E document at the time of consideration of the writ appeal, Annexure-F order would show that the document referred to in Annexure-E document was under challenge in that writ petition, which led to Annexure-F order. The remaining documents produced by the review petitioner are of the period subsequent to the passing of judgment in the writ appeal. On appreciation of the contentions raised by the petitioner, it is only to be held that the present attempt of the petitioner is to raise the contentions in the writ appeal once again by invoking the review jurisdiction.

                  Having considered the pleadings and materials on record and the submissions made at the Bar, we find no sufficient reason to hold that the petitioner has made out any of the grounds provided under Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the CPC to review the judgment dated 09.10.2025 passed by this Court in the writ appeal. The attempt of the petitioner appears as to invoke the review jurisdiction as an appeal in disguise. Therefore, the review petition is liable to be dismissed.

                  In the result, the review petition stands dismissed.