Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dipak Misra and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

JUDGMENT

Dipak Misra, J.

1. In this special leave petition, the challenge is to the order dated 9^th March, 2012, passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam in R.S.A. No. 345 of 2012 and the order dated 26^th October, 2016, passed in Review Petition No. 886 of 2012.

2. Ordinarily, we would have passed a short order in the matter dismissing the special leave petition which would have paved the path for extinction for the litigation, for it is devoid of any merit warranting any interference but, an eloquent one, the circumstances impel us to state something more.

3. A Regular Second Appeal was preferred before the High Court Under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure challenging the judgment and decree passed in Appeal Suit No. 149 of 2008, which had given the stamp of approval to the judgment and decree passed by the learned Munsiff, Alappuzha in O.S. No. 518 of 2003. The learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the Second Appeal on 9^th March, 2012. The Appellant therein filed a review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 Code of Civil Procedure on 20^th September, 2012. The review was barred by limitation and eventually, the same was not entertained on merits.

4. We are really not concerned with the entertaining of an application for review with some delay, but what is perplexing is that the review petition preferred in 2012, was kept pending for almost four years and, thereafter, the High Court has dismissed the same by observing that an effort has been made to seek review of the main judgment as if the High Court was expected to exercise appellate jurisdiction while dealing with an application for review.

5. Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:

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 Responde........