V.M. Syam Kumar, J.

1. This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the judgment dated 25.10.2025 in W.A.No.939 of 2023. Review Petitioner was the appellant in the said Writ Appeal.

2. The Writ Appeal was filed challenging the judgment of the learned Single Judge dismissing the W.P.(C) filed by the petitioner seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the 3rd respondent shopping mall to return the amount of Rs.20/- collected from him towards parking fee. He had also, in the W.P.(C), sought a writ of prohibition directing the State as well as the concerned local Government Authority to restrain the 3rd respondent shopping mall from collecting any money from the public towards parking fees.

3. This Court, vide the judgment sought to be reviewed, had dismissed the Writ Appeal inter alia holding that the conclusions arrived at by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the Writ Petition were valid and proper and that no interference was necessary with respect to the findings arrived at. This Review Petition has been filed by the petitioner, contending that the judgment contains an error apparent on the face of the record and that crucial facts and statutory violations had been overlooked while rendering the judgment sought to be reviewed.

4. Heard the Review Petitioner, Sri.Bosco Louis, who appeared in person, Sri.S.Sreekumar, Senior Advocate appearing for the 3rd respondent and the learned Government Pleader appearing for respondents 1 and 4.

5. The petitioner submitted that false and fabricated parking fee licences had been produced by the 3rd respondent and that Rule 29 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules had been violated. He submits that the licence issued is with respect to a nonexistent parking area and that the very location stated in the licence is false, proving fabrication. It is further contended that while the parking fee collection licenses could have been issued only by the Revenue Department of the Municipality, the purported licence produced by the official respondents bears the signature of the Health Department officials. This, according to the petitioner, is a serious procedural irregularity and shows that the document had been manufactured to mislead this Court. It is contended that using a ‘fake’ licence, the Mall had illegally collected parking fees and had been blocking the mandated parking space requirement for ‘other establishments’ as per Rule 29 of the Kerala Municipality Building Rules. The petitioner submitted that manifest injustice had resulted from overlooking the above said violations and that substantial questions of public importance that had been raised, which affect the national urban mobility, public access rights and consumer rights had been overlooked in the judgment, thus requiring a review thereof.

6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 3rd respondent submitted that the Review Petition does not reveal any error apparent on the face of the record justifying a review of the judgment, and that the R.P. has been filed only as a chance litigation.

7. It is to be noted that the circumstances in which the review jurisdiction is to be exercised are no longer res integra. Section 114 of the CPC, which is the substantive provision, deals with the scope of review and states as follows:

                  “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. The grounds available for filing a review application against a judgment have been set out in Order XLVII of the CPC in the following words:

                  “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.]

9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has, in a catena of binding precedents, held that unless an error apparent on the face of the record is revealed, a review cannot be maintained. In Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon v. Union of India and Others reported in [1980 Supp SCC 562], the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that a review of an earlier order cannot be done unless the court is satisfied that the material error which is manifest on the face of the order would result in miscarriage of justice or undermine its soundness. The observations made are as follows:

                  “12. A review is not a routine procedure. Here we resolved to hear Shri Kapil at length to remove any feeling that the party has been hurt without being heard. But we cannot review our earlier order unless satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. In Sow Chandra Kante and Another v. Sheikh Habib reported in (1975) 1 SCC 674, this Court observed :

                  "A review of a judgment is a serious step and reluctant resort to it is proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like grave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility. The present stage is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has the normal feature of finality."

(emphasis added)

10. In Parsion Devi and others v. Sumitri Devi and Others reported in [(1997) 8 SCC 715], stating that an error that is not selfevident and the one that has to be detected by the process of reasoning, cannot be described as an error apparent on the face of the record for the Court to exercise the powers of review, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

                  “7. It is well settled that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the ambit and scope of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.6 Thungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. Govt. of A.P.1 reported in (1964) 5 SCR 174 , this Court opined:

                  'What, however, we are now concerned with is whether the statement in the order of September 1959 that the case did not involve any substantial question of law is an ‘error apparent on the face of the record’. The fact that on the earlier occasion the Court held on an identical state of facts that a substantial question of law arose would not per se be conclusive, for the earlier order itself might be erroneous. Similarly, even if the statement was wrong, it would not follow that it was an ‘error apparent on the face of the record’, for there is a distinction which is real, though it might not always be capable of exposition, between a mere erroneous decision and a decision which could be characterized as vitiated by ‘error apparent’. A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.’

                  8.       Again, in Meera Bhanja v. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in (1995) 1 SCC 170, while quoting with approval a passage from Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma reported in (1979) 4 SCC 389, this Court once again held that 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 CPC.

                  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 6 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 this 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" [emphasis added]

11. The error referred to under the Rule must be apparent on the face of the record and not one which has to be searched out. It is also settled law that in the 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. In Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. and others reported in [(2005) 6 SCC 651], the Hon’ble Supreme Court 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."        (emphasis added)

12. Review Petition cannot be used as a pretext to reiterate previously raised and rejected arguments. A review cannot be an attempt to reopen the conclusions reached in a judgment. The scope of review should not be conflated with appellate jurisdiction, by which a superior court can rectify errors committed by a subordinate court. This aspect has been elucidated in Jain Studios Ltd. v. Shin Satellite Public Co. Ltd. reported in [(2006) 5 SCC 501], wherein it was held thus:

                  “11. So far as the grievance of the applicant on merits is concerned, the learned counsel for the opponent is right in submitting that virtually the applicant seeks the same relief which had been sought at the time of arguing the main matter and had been negatived. Once such a prayer had been refused, no review petition would lie which would convert rehearing of the original matter. It is settled law that the power of review cannot be confused with appellate power which enables a superior court to correct all errors committed by a subordinate court. It is not rehearing of an original matter. A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. The power of review can be exercised with extreme care, caution and circumspection and only in exceptional cases.

                  12. When a prayer to appoint an arbitrator by the applicant herein had been made at the time when the arbitration petition was heard and was rejected, the same relief cannot be sought by an indirect method by filing a review petition. Such petition, in my opinion, is in the nature of 'second innings' which is impermissible and unwarranted and cannot be granted.” (emphasis added)

13. In Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others reported in [(2013) 8 SCC 320], the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after a detailed discussion on related precedents, observed that review proceedings have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1, CPC. If the point sought to be raised in the review application has already been dealt with and answered, parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment only because an alternative view is possible. The principles for exercising review jurisdiction were succinctly summarised in the said case as below:

                  “20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

                  20.1.   When the review will be maintainable:

                  (i)       Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

                  (ii)      Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

                  (iii)     Any other sufficient reason.

                  The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chajju Ram v. Neki (AIR 1922 PC 112), and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors. (AIR 1954 SC 526) to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors reported in (2013) 8 SCC 337,

                  20.2.   When the review will not be maintainable:

                  (i)       A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

                  (ii)      Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

                  (iii)     Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

                  (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

                  (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

                  (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

                  (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

                  (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

                  (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”

14. In Shri Ram Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and Others v. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others reported in [(2020) SCC Online SC 896], citing previous decisions and expounding on the scope and ambit of Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that Section 114 CPC does not lay any conditions precedent in exercising the power of review; and nor does the Section prohibit the Court from exercising its power to review a decision. However, an order can be reviewed by the Court only on the grounds prescribed in Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. The said power cannot be exercised as an inherent power and nor can appellate power be exercised in the guise of exercising the power of review.

15. In our considered opinion, none of the grounds available for successfully seeking review as recognised by Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are made out in the present case. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of S.Bagirathi Ammal v. Palani Roman Catholic Mission [(2009) 10 SCC 464] has held that to seek review, it has to be demonstrated that the order suffers from an error contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which is to be fished out and searched. A decision or order cannot be reviewed merely because it is erroneous.

16. On perusal of the record and in the light of the judgments passed in the case of S.Bagirathi Ammal (supra), no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference in the impugned judgment has been pointed out or revealed.

                  In view of the above settled position of law, the Review Petition, insofar as it does not reveal any error apparent on the face of the record, and is only a reiteration of the earlier contentions in the Writ Appeal, which have been duly considered and turned down, does not hold merit. The Review Petition is fit to be dismissed, and it is hereby ordered so.