Sushrut Arvind Dharmadhikari, J.

1. The present Review Petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule I read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of the judgment dated 12.12.2025 passed in WA No.2753/2025 whereby the Writ Appeal has been dismissed.

2. The brief facts of the case are that the 1st respondent/complainant’s vehicle was detained by the Kerala State Electricity Board Ltd, ie, the 2nd respondent herein. In order to get the vehicle released, he was compelled to pay the amount as claimed, ie, Rs.68,437/-. The 1st respondent approached the appellant seeking re-imbursement of the said amount as the vehicle was covered with an insurance package policy covering the third party risk including property damage etc. Since there was no re-imbursement from the appellant, the 1st respondent submitted a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ernakulam in CC No.580/2023. The issue with regard to jurisdiction of the District Commission was raised on the ground that it had no jurisdiction to consider the disputes which come under the scope of Section 126 of the Electricity Act of 2003. The District Forum, after hearing the parties concerned, passed order dated 21.04.2025, rejecting the said contention and held that the complaint is maintainable under the provisions of Consumer Protection Act, 2019. Being aggrieved, the Review Petitioner challenged the order in the Writ Petition before this Court. The learned Single Judge dismissed the Writ Petition and held that the complaint is maintainable. Being aggrieved the Review Petitioner filed Writ Appeal No.2753/2025. This Court came to the conclusion as under:

                  “15. After carefully going through all the statutory provisions and the implications thereof with reference to the grievances highlighted by the 1st respondent in the complainant before the Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the District Consumer Forum has rightly decided the issue with regard to jurisdiction. Accordingly, this Writ Appeal is dismissed without prejudice to other contentions raised by the appellant. Accordingly, we hold that the State Commission has the jurisdiction to hear the appeal and also to the decide the issue of jurisdiction with regard to maintainability of the complaint before the District Forum.

                  16. With the aforesaid, the Writ Appeal stands dismissed. The appellant would be at liberty to approach the State Commission within a period of 30 days from today, if so advised. The period spent before this Court in prosecuting the Writ Appeal as well as the Writ Petition shall not be taken into account by the State Commission while considering any application for condonation of delay etc., in accordance with law.

                  All interlocutory applications as regards interim matters stands closed.”

                  Being aggrieved, the present Review Petition is filed.

3. The Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that this Court erred in dismissing the Writ Appeal inasmuch as the matter relating to the Motor Vehicles Act cannot be entertained by the District Consumer Commission since the Motor Vehicles Act is a Special Act, therefore, Consumer Protection Act, 2019 (For short the Act) would not apply. This Court failed to consider this fact and dismissed the Writ Appeal on the ground of alternative remedy. Thus this Review Petition may be allowed.

4. Heard learned counsel for the Review Petitioner and perused the records.

5. We have carefully gone through all the statutory provisions. Admittedly, the appeal is provided to the State Consumer Commission under Section 41 of the Act of 2019. Apart from this, the State Commission is empowered to decide the jurisdiction to hear the appeal as also to decide the issue of jurisdiction with regard to maintainability of the complaint before the District Forum. In view of the aforesaid, we refrain from entertaining the present Review Petition since no apparent error is seen on the face of record. But, it is only an interpretation of statute.

6. 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.

7. 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.”

8. 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.”

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. 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)

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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”.

15. 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 fulfilment 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.”

16. 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.

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 12.12.2025 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 is liable to be dismissed. In the result, the review petition stands dismissed.