(Prayer: Review Application has been filed under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 and 2 C.P.C., against the order dated 22.03.2024, passed in Cont.P. (MD)No.1990 of 2023 in C.R.P.(MD)No.1007 of 2013, on the file of this Court.)

1. The Review Application is directed against the order passed in Cont.P. (MD)No.1990 of 2023 in C.R.P.(MD)No.1007 of 2013, dated 22.03.2024.

2. The petitioner filed the Contempt Petition under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act 1971 in Contempt Petition No.1990 of 2023, for punishing the respondent / Judicial Officer for deliberate and wilful disobedience of the order passed in C.R.P.(MD)No.1007 of 2013, dated 09.12.2014, on the file of this Court.

3. The main grounds raised in the review petition relate to the scope of the order passed in C.R.P.(MD)No.1007 of 2013, the proceedings before the Executing Court, the effect of the order passed in the writ appeal in W.A. (MD)No.50 of 2010 and the earlier contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondent/Judicial Officer.

4. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to consider the scope of review under Section 114 and Order 47 C.P.C. A combined reading of Section 114 and Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure makes it clear that a Review Petition would be maintainable on (1) discovery of new and important matters or evidence which after exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the applicant or could not be produced by him, when the decree was passed or the order made; (2) on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; or (3) for any other sufficient reason.

5. It is settled law that in exercise of review jurisdiction, the Court cannot re-appreciate the evidence to arrive at a different conclusion even if two views are possible in a matter. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kerala State Electricity Board Vs Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd.and others (Review Petition (civil) 238 of 2003 dated 10/08/2005), has specifically observed as follows:

                     “10 ......... In a review petition it is not open to this Court to reappreciate the evidence and reach a different conclusion, even if that is possible. Learned counsel for the Board at best sought to impress us that the correspondence exchanged between the parties did not support the conclusion reached by this Court. We are afraid such a submission cannot be permitted to be advanced in a review petition. The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court. If on appreciation of the evidence produced, the Court records a finding of fact and reaches a conclusion, that conclusion cannot be assailed in a review petition unless it is shown that there is an error apparent on the face of the record or for some reason akin thereto. It has not been contended before us that there is any error apparent on the face of the record. To permit the review petitioner to argue on a question of appreciation of evidence would amount to converting a review petition into an appeal in disguise.”

6. In Lily Thomas, Etc. vs Union Of India and Others reported in (2000)6 SC 224, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that the power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake and not to substitute a view and such powers can be exercised within the limits of the statute dealing with the exercise of power. It is beyond any doubt or dispute that the review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. It is settled law that a rehearing of the matter is impermissible in law. The word “review” would mean the act of looking offer something again with a view to correction or improvement. No doubt, the review is the creation of a statute and not an inherent power. It is also not an appeal in disguise. A judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C. 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 to review under Order 47 Rule 1 C.P.C, and it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected, but a review petition must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an 'appeal in disguise'.

7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Malleeswari Vs. K.Suguna and another in SLP (C) No.12787 of 2025, reported in MANU/SC/1240/2025, dated 08.09.2025 has dealt with the scope of the review jurisdiction and it is necessary to refer the following passages:

                     “15. It is axiomatic that the right of appeal cannot be assumed unless expressly conferred by the statute or the rules having the force of a statute. The review jurisdiction cannot be assumed unless it is conferred by law on the authority or the Court. Section 114 and Order 47, Rule 1 of CPC deal with the power of review of the courts. The power of review is different from appellate power and is subject to the following limitations to maintain the finality of judicial decisions:

                     15.1 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 of CPC.

                     15.2 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.

                     15.3 In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of 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.

                     15.4 The power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power. 15.5 The review court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered.6 Hence, it is invoked only to prevent a miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors.

                     16. To wit, through a review application, an apparent error of fact or law is intimated to the court, but no extra reasoning is undertaken to explain the said error. The intimation of error at the first blush enables the court to correct apparent errors instead of the higher court correcting such errors. At both the above stages, detailed reasoning is not warranted.

                     17. Having noticed the distinction between the power of review and appellate power, we restate the power and scope of review jurisdiction. Review grounds are summed up as follows:

                     17.1 The ground of discovery of new and important matter or evidence is a ground available if it is demonstrated that, despite the exercise of due diligence, this evidence was not within their knowledge or could not be produced by the party at the time, the original decree or order was passed.

                     17.2 Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record may be invoked if there is something more than a mere error, and it must be the one which is manifest on the face of the record.8 Such an error is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. An error which has to be established by a long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record.

                     17.3 Lastly, the phrase ‘for any other sufficient reason’ means a reason that is sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the other two categories.”

8. Considering the above, the legal position is well settled that the power of review is not an appellate power. The review petition cannot be entertained merely for re-hearing the matter or for permitting the unsuccessful litigant to re-agitate the very same submissions which had already been considered and rejected.

9. A cursory perusal of the order passed in the contempt petition, now sought to be reviewed, would reveal that the grounds now canvassed had already been considered in detail. More particularly, this Court had specifically considered the order passed in C.R.P.(MD)No.1007 of 2013, dated 09.12.2014 and observed that the direction therein was only for takinig delivery of the suit property, but the petitioner had attempted to seek delivery of another property, which was not the subject matter of the suit and decree and that therefore, this Court had rejected the petitioner's contention in that regard.

10. The next contention of the petitioner sought to be raised on the basis of the order of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.(MD)No.50 of 2010 cannot also be considered as a new ground and the same has already considered, while passing the orders in the contempt petition. It is pertinent to mention that this Court had noticed that the Division Bench had only observed that the petitioner could secure execution of the decree granted by the civil Court and that no direction had been given with respect to any property other then the property covered by the suit and decree.

11. Similarly in the order now under challenge, this Court had also considered the earlier contempt proceedings initiated by the petitioner against the respondent/Judicial Officer, wherein this Court had noticed that the contempt petitiion came to be dismissed at the SR stage, by holding that though the procedure adopted by the Judicial Officer was irregular, the same did not attract contempt jurisdiction. Considering the above, it is very much evident that the petitioner had raised the same points again which were already considered and decided by this Court in the contempt petition.

12. On perusing the grounds raised in the present review petition, this Court does not find any error apparent on the face of the record, but on the other hand, the petitioner has substantially reiterated the very same contentions which had already been canvassed and considered in the contempt proceedings. To put it in short, the petitioner under the guise of review seeks re-hearing of the contempt petition on merits, which is impermissible, in exercise of review jurisdiction.

13. More importantly, it is pertinent to mention that this Court while dismissing the contempt petition, had specifically recorded that the petitioner had been filing the petition after petition and thereby consuming considerable judicial time in his attempt to obtain possession of the property which was not the subject matter of the suit and decree and that the petitioner had been abusing the process of law and the process of Court.

14. It is also pertinent to note that the contempt petition came to be dismissed with costs of Rs.25,000/- payable by the petitioner to the respondent / Judicial Officer within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the said order. Admittedly, the petitioner has not paid the costs. But the petitioner would only contend that the costs were not paid, since the present review petition has been filed. The mere filing of a review petiton does not, by itself, operate as a stay of the order sought to be reviewed. In the absence of any order staying the direction for payment of costs, the petitioner was bound to comply with the same.

15. The petitioner, despite the specific findings recorded by this Court regarding the abuse and misuse of the process of Court and law, has once again approached this court by filing the present review petition, reiterating the very same submissions which had already been considered and rejected. As rightly contended by the learned Counsel for the respondent, the review jurisdiction cannot be permitted to invoke for another round of litigation and for re-opening the issues which have already been decided.

16. Considering the above, this Court is constrained to note that such repeated attempts to re-agitate the concluded issues amount to abuse of process of Court and cannot be countenanced. On considering the entire facts and circumstances and also takinig note of the review grounds, this Court is of the clear view that the petitioner has not made out any ground warranting review of the order passed in the contempt petition. Taking note of the conduct of the petitioner, including his failure to comply with the earlier direction and in the absence of any grounds so as to attract Section 114 C.P.C., r.w Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure, this Court is of the view that the review application is liable to be dismissed with costs.

17. In the result, the Review Application is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand only) payable by the petitioner to the Legal Services Authority attached to this Bench, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioner is also directed to comply with the earlier direction regarding payment of costs of Rs.25,000/- to the respondent/Judicial Officer as ordered in the Contempt Petition in Cont.P. (MD)No.1990 of 2023, if not already complied with, within the same period.

18. For Compliance, post the matter after two weeks.