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, by the petitioner in W.P.(C) No.20996/2024, seeking to review the common judgment of this Court dated 17.10.2025 in W.P(C) Nos.14200/2024 and 20996/2024.

2. The two Writ Petitions were filed challenging the order of the Ombudsman for Local Self Government Institutions. This Court, as per judgment dated 17.10.2025, has allowed W.P.(C) No. 14200/2024 filed by the Cochin Devaswom Board and dismissed W.P.(C) No. 20996/2024 preferred by the review petitioner herein.

3. The learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted that the judgment sought to be reviewed is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the record. The learned counsel contended that the specific case of the review petitioner is that the action of the Secretary of the Panchayat in not proceeding further pursuant to Ext. P9 show cause notice and in not passing a final order under Section 235W(3) of the Panchayat Raj Act is arbitrary and illegal. It was further submitted that this crucial aspect of the matter was not considered by this Court while rendering the judgment.

4. The review petitioner further states that while passing the impugned judgment, this Court has not considered Section 271 Q(v) of the Panchayat Raj Act, wherein the Ombudsman has the authority to order necessary remedial measures.

5. The learned counsel has placed reliance on the dictum laid down in Samruddhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. v. Mumbai Mahalaxmi Construction Pvt. Ltd. ( 2022 KHC 6026) and in Kaniz Ahmed v. Sabudddin (2025(3) KHC 504) .

6. Heard.

7. 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.”

8. Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure clearly states the circumstances in which the power of review of a decree or order can be invoked. The instances are;

                  1.       the discovery of new and important matter for evidence, which could not be produced at the time of passing the decree or order, or

                  2.       there are some mistakes or errors apparent on the face of the record, or

                  3.       any other sufficient reason.

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. In Malleeswari (supra), the Apex Court observed that the power to review a judgment cannot be equated with the appellate powers. In S. Murali Sundaram (supra), the Apex Court declared that review is not an appeal in disguise. The power of review can be exercised for the correction of the mistake and not to substitute a view.

13. In light of the aforementioned dictum, it is evident that Review jurisdiction is not akin to appellate jurisdiction. This Court, by its judgment dated 17.10.2025, has thoroughly examined the various facets of the matter and rendered its decision accordingly. The review petitioner herein seeks to re-agitate the issues previously adjudicated, which is impermissible under the principles governing review proceedings.

14. We find no apparent error on the face of the record sufficient to warrant the exercise of the review jurisdiction conferred upon this Court under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Upon meticulous scrutiny of the records and after hearing the submissions of the learned counsel for the review petitioner, we are unable to discern any merit in the review petition. Consequently, the same is liable to be dismissed.

                  The Review Petition is dismissed.