K. V. Jayakumar, J.

1. This Review Petition is preferred under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, seeking to review the judgment of this Court dated 01.04.2025 in W.A. No.1680/2020.

2. The review petitioners herein are the appellants in W.A.No. 1680/2020, which was dismissed by this Court by judgment dated 01.04.2025. The appellants assert that the judgment is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record.

3. Sri. V. Santharam, learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that W.A.No.1680/2020 was filed challenging the judgment dated 14.01.2020 in WP(C) No.5604 of 2012, wherein the learned Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and directed the respondents therein to refix the pay of the writ petitioners granting them all the benefits consequent to Ext.P3 and P4 orders therein within a period of three months.

4. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the Writ Appeal on the premise that there is no illegality and perversity warranting interference of judicial review while exercising power of intra court appeal and held that the stand of the appellants were not justified in supporting Ext.P5 as increments have to be at the rate shown in the scale of pay attached to the employee who was holding the post from time to time.

5. The learned counsel for the review petitioners submitted that the bench has failed to consider that the incentive schemes were not part of the wage agreement and the same is only a policy decision of the review petitioners. Further, it is submitted that the bench has failed to consider the grounds raised by the review petitioners in the Writ Appeal.

6. Sri. K. R. Ganesh, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents, would submit that there are no errors apparent on the face of the record and the review petition is filed on misconception of facts.

7. Heard.

8. Before we proceed with the discussion, it would be useful to extract Order XLVII Rule 1 and Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

                  “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, or 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.”

                  “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. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi ((1997) 8 SCC 715) , the Apex Court held as under:

                  ” 9. 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’.”

10. In S. Murali Sundaram v. Jothibai Kannan ((2023) 13 SCC 515) , the Apex Court reiterated that review is not an appeal in disguise. The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, not to substitute a view; such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power.

11. In Malleeswari v. K. Suguna (2025 KHC OnLine 6773) , the Apex Court observed that the power of review is different from appellate power and is subject to certain limitations. Review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the Subordinate Court.

12. The principles laid down in Malleeswari (supra) and S. Murali Sundaram (supra) make the position abundantly clear: the power to review a judgment cannot be equated with appellate powers, and review jurisdiction is confined to correction of manifest errors and not to substitution of views or re-appreciation of the matter.

13. In the light of the authoritative pronouncements referred to above, it is evident that the Review Court cannot sit in appeal over its own judgment. This Court, by judgment dated 01.04.2025, has already considered the various aspects of the matter in detail and arrived at its conclusions. The present review petition is nothing but an attempt to re-agitate the very same issues, which is legally impermissible.

14. On a careful examination of the record and upon hearing the submissions advanced, we do not find any error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of the review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

                  Accordingly, the Review Petition is dismissed.