Power Of Review Is To Correct Mistakes, Not Substitute Views Or Act As 'Appeal In Disguise': Kerala High Court

"The power of review can be exercised for correction of a mistake but not to substitute a view. The review cannot be treated like an appeal in disguise." Kerala High Court, in a recent decision, held that the review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) cannot be invoked merely to rehear a case or substitute a judicial view.

A division bench comprising Justice Anil K. Narendran and Justice Harisankar V. Menon ruled that the failure of parties to rely upon an Apex Court judgment during the original hearing cannot later form the basis for a review petition, as it would amount to an appeal in disguise.

The review petitioners, employed as Cooks under the National Institute of Fisheries Post Harvest Technology & Training, originally approached the Central Administrative Tribunal seeking financial upgradation under the Assured Career Progression (ACP) and Modified Assured Career Progression (MACP) Schemes. The Tribunal, and subsequently the High Court, rejected their claims holding that they lacked the prescribed educational qualifications for the promotional post of Bosun (Uncertified). The petitioners then filed the present review petition relying on a 2023 Supreme Court judgment, which held that educational qualifications for promotional posts are not mandatory for claiming ACP benefits.

The primary question before the court was whether the subsequent production of a Supreme Court judgment, which was not placed before the bench during the original proceedings, constitutes a valid ground for review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. The court was also called upon to determine if entertaining such a plea would amount to an impermissible rehearing of the entire dispute.

No Rehearing Of The Entire Dispute

The court noted that the original judgment was delivered based on the specific contentions urged by the parties at the time, referencing earlier decisions of the Apex Court and the High Court. The bench observed that the petitioners did not bring the 2023 Supreme Court judgment to the court's attention during the original hearing of the petition. Consequently, the court found that the petitioners were essentially seeking a fresh adjudication of the matter.

"In other words, the petitioners seek a rehearing of the entire lis, which, in our opinion, is outside the scope of the review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908."

Limits Of Review Jurisdiction Explained

Relying upon a catena of Supreme Court decisions, the High Court delineated the strict boundaries of its review jurisdiction. The bench cited the landmark rulings in Thungabhadra Industries Ltd v. Government of Andhra Pradesh [AIR 1964 SC 1372] and Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi [(1980) 2 SCC 167] to emphasize that a review mechanism is not a tool to re-argue a concluded case.

Review Cannot Substitute A Judicial View

Further cementing this legal position, the court referred to the Supreme Court's pronouncement in Lily Thomas v. Union of India [(2000) 6 SCC 224]. The bench reiterated that the power of review is strictly meant for the correction of patent mistakes and cannot be used to substitute an already formulated judicial view. The court clarified that even if an alternate view on the subject was possible, it would not justify entertaining a review petition.

"The mere possibility of two views on the subject is not a ground for review."

Tribunal's Findings On Promotional Hierarchy

While addressing the substantive claim for financial upgradation, the court also recorded the submissions made by the Central Government Counsel. It was brought to the court's notice that the Tribunal had categorically found the post of Bosun to be entirely outside the promotional hierarchy of the applicants. Therefore, the foundational basis for seeking the benefits under the ACP and MACP schemes was never available to the petitioners in the first place.

Finding no valid justification to interfere with its earlier decision, the High Court concluded that the review petition lacked merit and was outside the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. The court dismissed the review petition, thereby upholding the original judgment that denied the financial upgradation benefits to the petitioners.

Date of Decision: 21 July 2026