RP NO. 465 OF 2025 1 2025:KER:30924 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM TUESDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 / 18TH CHAITHRA, 1947 RP NO. 465 OF 2025 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 17.03.2025 IN RSA NO.935 OF 2018 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA REVIEW PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN THE R.S.A.: 1 APPU JOSEPH AGED 84 YEARS SON OF VELLARINGAT JOSEPH, VELLARINGAT HOUSE, U.P.SCHOOL ROAD, PALAPARAMBA, VADAPURAM (P.O.), MAMPAD AMSOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676542 2 TESSAMMA APPU AGED 76 YEARS WIFE OF APPU JOSEPH, VELLARINGAT HOUSE, U.P.SCHOOL ROAD, PALAPARAMBA, VADAPURAM (P.O.), MAMPAD AMSOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676542 BY ADV R.RAJESH KORMATH RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS IN THE R.S.A: 1 MAYINKUTTY AGED 75 YEARS SON OF MADHURAKARIYAN KUNHARAMU, PALAPARAMBA, VADAPURAM (P.O.), MAMPAD AMSOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676542 2 THE KERALA STATE REPRESENTED BY THE DISTRICT COLLECTOR, MALAPPURAM, CIVIL STATION (P.O.), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676505 3 THE SUPERINTENDENT OF RESURVEY NILAMBUR TALUK, NILAMBUR (P.O.), MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 679329 RP NO. 465 OF 2025 2 2025:KER:30924 4 SHAMEEM JUNAID AGED 48 YEARS SON OF MADHURAKARIYAN MAYINKUTTY, PALAPARAMBA, VADAPURAM (P.O.), MAMPAD AMSOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676542 5 SULAIKA AGED 46 YEARS DAUGHTER OF MADHURAKARIYAN MAYINKUTTY, PALAPARAMBA, VADAPURAM (P.O.), MAMPAD AMSOM, NILAMBUR TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN - 676542 R2 & R3 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI. DENNY DEVASSY THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 08.04.2025, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: RP NO. 465 OF 2025 3 2025:KER:30924 ORDER 1. The appellants in the Regular Second Appeal has filed this Review Petition. This Court dismissed the Appeal as per the judgment dated 17.03.2025. The Review petitioners were the defendants 1 & 2 in the suit. 2. The suit was for declaration of the rights of the plaintiff over plaint B schedule property, mandatory injunction to the defendants 3 & 4, who are the State and Superintendent of Resurvey, to correct the mistake in the resurvey by including plaint A schedule property as part of plaint B schedule property in resurvey records and permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the defendants 1 and 2 from trespassing into plaint A schedule property and committing waste therein. 3. The case of the Plaintiff is that A schedule property is a part of plaint B schedule property lying on the northern extremity of plaint B schedule property. Plaint A schedule property was RP NO. 465 OF 2025 4 2025:KER:30924 originally shown as 9.7 cents of land and after Commission Report it was amended as 8.94 cents. Likewise, Plaint B schedule property was originally shown as 7 acres 12 cents of land and after Commission Report it was amended as 7 acres 24.94 cents. Plaint B schedule property is having well defined boundaries on all sides. The property of the defendants 1 and 2 is situated on the northern side of Plaint B schedule property. 4. The Trial Court decreed the suit in part declaring that the plaintiff is the absolute owner and in possession of the plaint B schedule property including plaint A schedule property and granting permanent prohibitory injunction. The relief of mandatory injunction was declined. 5. Though the defendants 1 and 2 filed Appeal and the plaintiff filed Cross Objection before the First Appellate Court, the First Appellate Court confirmed the judgment and decree. 6. The defendants 1 & 2 filed Regular Second Appeal in which the plaintiff filed Cross Objection. Though this Court admitted the RP NO. 465 OF 2025 5 2025:KER:30924 Regular Second appeal formulating the substantial question of law, this Court dismissed both the Appeal as well as the Cross Objection by the impugned judgment. 7. Now the appellants are seeking review of the impugned judgment raising several grounds. On going through the grounds raised in the Memorandum of Review, I find that the contention of the Review Petitioner in all the grounds is that this Court has arrived at erroneous findings. The Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure is maintainable only if the Review Petitioner is able to substantiate that there is error apparent on the face of the record. The error apparent on the face of the record would mean that the error should be apparent from the judgment itself. It should be patent and glaring. It is well settled that 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 record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. Though the RP NO. 465 OF 2025 6 2025:KER:30924 Review Petitioners have stated that the judgment is vitiated by errors apparent on the face of the records, they could not make out any error apparent on the face of the records. The large numbers of grounds taken in the Memorandum of Review show that the attempt of the Review petitioners is to re-agitate the entire matter in this Review Petition. Rehearing of the entire matter is not permissible under Order XLVII Rule 1 of C.P.C. If the grounds raised by the Review petition are considered, the entire Appeal has to be reheard. In such case, this Court would be sitting in appeal against its own judgment. Review shall not be an appeal in disguise. In view of the above, I do not intend to consider the various grounds raised in the Review Petition, which would only allege that the findings in the impugned judgment are erroneous. Accordingly, I dismiss the Review Petition. Sd/- M.A.ABDUL HAKHIM SHG/ JUDGE