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 appellant in W.A.No.1073 of 2025, seeking review of the judgment dated 27.05.2025, passed by a Division Bench of this Court wherein one among us [Muralee Krishna S., J.] was sitting along with Amit Rawal, J., by which the writ appeal was dismissed. Since Amit Rawal, J., demitted office, this review petition is listed before this Bench, as per roster.

2. According to the petitioner, a proper hearing was not afforded to the petitioner when the writ appeal came up for admission on 27.05.2025. Moreover, the petitioner could not produce Annexure-1 communication dated 07.02.1986 of the Government of India addressed to all Chief Secretaries of the State Governments, which is very relevant to the nature and constitution of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan (‘K.V.S’ in short). Therefore, the judgment is to be reviewed.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Standing Counsel for Sree Sankaracharya University, the learned Special Government Pleader, the learned Deputy Solicitor General of India and the learned Standing Counsel for K.V.S.

4. When the petitioner says that a new and important matter by way of Annexure-1 communication of the Government of India came to the knowledge of the petitioner after the pronouncement of the judgment in the writ appeal, the learned counsel on the other side submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the record or there is any other sufficient ground which entitles the petitioner to seek review of the judgment. If the petitioner is aggrieved by the detailed and considered judgment passed in the writ appeal, the remedy of the petitioner is to approach the Apex Court.

5. In order 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.

                  6. 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.”

                  7. 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 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.”

8. 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.

9. 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.

10. 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)

11. In N.Anantha Reddy v. Anshu Kathuria [(2013) 15 SCC 534], the Apex Court held that the mistake apparent on the face of 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.

12. 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.

13. 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”.

14. 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.”

15. 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.

16. 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 27.05.2025, 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 he was not given sufficient opportunity of hearing, the judgment shows otherwise. Annexure-1 document, now produced by the petitioner, is of the year 1986. In the judgment, this Court referred to the subsequent Government order dated 03.06.2009, which was marked as Ext.P9 in the writ petition. Similarly, the relevant provisions in the Kerala Service Rules are also considered by this Court while passing the judgment.

17. 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 27.05.2025 passed by this Court in the writ appeal. The attempt of the petitioner appears 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.