Order of the Cour was made by P. DEVADASS, J.
This review has been directed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code to review the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in O.S.A No. 91 of 2009 on 19.2.2014
2. We have heard Mr. O.R Santhanakrishnan, learned counsel for the applicant.
3. The learned counsel for the applicant would contend that there is an error apparent on the face of the judgement stated supra with regard to construction of a provision in the Carriage by Air Act, 1972. In this connection, the learned counsel invited our attention to paragraph 29 of the judgment stated supra wherein the position as to a statutory provision has been extracted and interpreted.
4. There is a minute distinction between an appeal and a review. An appeal camouflaged as review will not fall under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. If it requires examination of the entire matter again, which had been adjudicated, then, it will not be a case for review. An error apparent on the face of the record does not include determination by a judicial forum on a disputed question of law based on the pleadings and arguments of the parties. Correcting an error stated to have been occurred in the course of a judicial determination is the functions of next higher forum and not by the very same Court, which has rendered the judgment. The ambit, purport and scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 is entirely different from powers of an Appellate Court. It cannot be substituted by a Court of Review.
5. The arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the applicant are intended to assail the judgment of the Division Bench stated supra on the grounds of merit also involving interpretation of provisions of law in another way based on the fact situation. It may be a case for appeal and not for review, because it will result in re-writing of the judgment itself, which a Court of Review shall not do.
6. In the facts and circumstances, as no acceptable and plausible case has been made out to review the judgment of the Division Bench in O.S.A No. 91 of 2009 dated 19.2.2014, this review application fails and it is hereby dismissed. Consequently, the above MP is closed.