P.Harikrishnan, Vs. 1.The Assistant Commissioner, - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1167739
CourtChennai High Court
Decided OnAug-30-2013
JudgeN.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR
AppellantP.Harikrishnan,
Respondent1.The Assistant Commissioner,
Excerpt:
before the madurai bench of madras high court dated:30. 08/2013 coram the honourable mr.justice n.paul vasanthakumar and the honourable mr.justice p.devadass review application (md) no.59 of 2012 and review application (md) no.60 of 2012 in writ appeal (md)nos.614 & 710 of 2008 rev.aplc.(md).no.59 of 2012 p.harikrishnan, managing trustee, arulmigu eswari padhra kaliamman temple, neendakarai ".b". village, esanthangu, muttom post, agastheeswaram taluk, kanyakumari district. ... petitioner/ appellant/petitioner vs 1.the assistant commissioner, hr & ce administration department, nagercoil, kanyakumari district. 2.the executive officer, arulmigu isakki thirukoil, muppandal, thovalai taluk, kanyakumari district. ... respondents/ respondents/respondents review application is filed under order 47 rule 1 of c.p.c. r/w section 114 of c.p.c., against the common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, made in w.a.(md).no.614 of 2008. !for petitioner ... mr.t.r.rajagopal senior counsel for mr.s.s.sundar ^for respondents ... mr.k.sathiyasingh 1 & 2 rev.aplc.(md).no.60 of 2012:1. p.harikrishnan 2.periyannacha perumal ... petitioners/ appellants/respondents 4 & 5 vs 1.the commissioner. hr & ce department, chennai. 2.the commissioner, hr & ce department, mettu street, meenakshipuram, nagercoil. 3.d.dharmalingam 4.e.natarajan 5.v.suyambulingam ... respondents 1 to 5/ respondents/respondents k.kumaresan (died) 6.r.ranjitham 7.k.thurai raj 8.k.paulraj 9.thangadurai ... respondents/ respondents/petitioners review application is filed under order 47 rule 1 of c.p.c. r/w section 114 of c.p.c., against the common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, made in w.a.(md).no.710 of 2008. for petitioner ... mr.t.r.rajagopal, senior counsel for mr.s.s.sundar for 1st respondent ... mr.alagadevan, special government pleader for 2nd respondent ... mr.k.sathiyasingh for respondents ... no appearance 3 to 8 for 9th respondent ... mr.r.ramanlal :common order [order of the court was delivered by p.devadass, j.]. the appellants in w.a.(md).nos.614 & 710 of 2008 seeks review of the common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, rendered by a division bench of this court. 2.in kanyakumari district, in agastheeswaram taluk, in esanthangu, in neendakarai village, there is ".arulmigu eswari badhrakaliamman temple".. there were continued fights by a group, claiming hereditary trusteeship to administer the affairs of the said amman temple. it was mainly by one ponnumuthu nadar. he fought a long drawn legal battle before the hindu religious and charitable endowment authorities, and in various courts. it was opposed to by a rival group and also by the hindu religious and charitable endowment department (hereinafter referred to as ".hr & ce department). after ponnumuthu nadar, his son harikrishnan and periyannacha perumal nadar, the review applicants have continued the fight and are continuing it.3. mr.t.r.rajagopal, learned senior counsel for mr.s.s.sundar, learned counsel for the review applicants / appellants would contend that as early as in 1975, in the compromise decree passed in o.s.no.37 of 1971 by the learned subordinate judge, nagercoil, the hereditary trusteeship of the appellant's father viz., ponnumuthu nadar has been recognized. it was acted upon. after him, his son harikrishnan / review applicant became the managing trustee and as such administered the temple affairs since 2006. as per section 6(11) of the hindu religious and charitable endowment act, 1959, he has become the ".hereditary trustee". of this religious institution and he cannot be deprived of his office without any notice, however, without notice, the assistant commissioner, hr & ce department, nagercoil, on 18.01.2006 appointed an official as ".fit person". of the said temple. this is against law, when especially, as per the compromise decree in o.s.no.37 of 1971, ponnumuthu nadar acquired trusteeship, his son applicant-harikrishnan shall not be deprived of his office.4. the learned senior counsel further contended that in o.s.no.62 of 1998 before the sub-court, nagercoil, when certain persons have sought for framing a scheme to administer the affairs of the temple, the hr & ce department, as 8th defendant, filed written statement, confirming the hereditaryship and administration of the affairs of the temple by harikrishnan / appellant for several years. this was also raised in w.a.(md).nos.614 & 710 of 2008, which have been filed challenging the common order of the writ court, dated 22.09.2008 made in w.p.(md).nos.1273 of 2006 & 8496 of 2008 respectively. however, the writ appellate court in its common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, besides wrongly mentioning the said suit number and the persons, who have filed the suit, has not decided the issue in the light of the said admission of the hr & ce department in the written statement. there are errors apparent on the face of the record, thus, the common judgment of the writ appellate court, is required to be reviewed.5. mr.m.alagathevan, the learned special government pleader appearing for the hr & ce department contended that a civil court cannot decide the hereditaryship in question, there is embargo to do so in section 108 of the hindu religious and charitable endowment act. the learned special government pleader further contended that the hr & ce department never recognized the temple as a private temple. and at no point of time, the hr & ce department has recognized either the review applicant or his father or anybody as hereditary trustees of the temple. in fact, it was their repeated demand, which was negatived by the hr & ce department. the suit in o.s.no.37 of 1971 is a collusive suit. the hr & ce department is not a party to it. thus, the compromise effected in the said suit behind the back of the department will not bind the department. the writ appellate court in its common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, threadbare dealt with the matter and there is no error apparent on the face of the record, save some typographical mistake crept in, in para no.17 of the common judgment in mentioning the year of the said suit and the plaintiffs. that can be corrected, at any time, either by this court suo motu or on application by a party. thus, there is no scope for reviewing the common judgment, dated 27.03.2012.6. mr.k.sathiyasingh, the learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent (in review application(md)no.59 of 2012 viz., the executive officer, arulmigu isakki thirukoil, muppandal, thovalai taluk, kanyakumari district, the ".fit person". (thakkar) appointed to administer the arulmigu eswari badhrakaliamman temple) reiterated the submissions of the learned special government pleader.7. mr.r.ramanlal, the learned counsel for 9th respondent (in review application (md) no.60 of 2012), besides reiterating the submissions of the learned special government pleader, submitted that the glamour of ponnumuthu nadar, his son and their supporters for trusteeship of the temple has been consistently negatived by the hr & ce department and the courts. in the circumstances, a stray sentence, as against the reality of the situation, made by the hr & ce department, in its written statement in the scheme suit in o.s.no.62 of 1998 will not confer right of trusteeship to harikrishnan / appellant nor abrogate the consistent view of the hr & ce department viz., temple being a public temple, neither ponnumuthu nadar nor harikrishnan were recognised as trustees of the temple. the learned counsel further contended that the applications were directed as per the leave obtained in the special leave petition filed before the hon'ble supreme court. it is only with reference to para no.17 of the common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, however, the appellant is arguing afresh the whole case, which has been rejected wholesale by the writ court as well as by the writ appellate court. the learned counsel further contended that since there is no error apparent in the said common judgment, there is no scope for review, except correcting certain typographical mistakes in para no.17 of the said common judgment, in mentioning the year of a suit and the plaintiffs and such mistakes can be corrected at any time, but that will not enable the applicants to seek review of the entire judgment.8. we have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned senior counsel for the review applicants, learned special government pleader for the hr & ce department, learned counsel for the executive officer of the temple and the learned counsel for the other contesting respondent, perused the common judgment of the writ appellate court, dated 27.03.2012 and the relevant portions of the records of the case, which are necessary for the disposal of the review applications.9. as already stated, there was long drawn legal battle to have the status of trusteeship of arulmigu eswari badhrakaliamman temple in neendakarai village. ponnumuthu nadar was a star among the claimants. after him, the battle is being continued by his son harikrishnan / review applicant and his associates. on 18.01.2006, the assistant commissioner, hr & ce department, nagercoil, appointed the executive officer of arulmigu isakki amman temple, muppandal, kanyakumari district as ".fit person". for administering the affairs of arulmigu eswari badhrakaliamman temple. this has prompted harikrishnan and another to file w.p.(md).no.1273 of 2006 challenging the said order. one kumaresan, filed w.p.(md).no.8496 of 2008 for a direction to hr & ce department, to take control of the said temple.10. on 22.09.2008, the writ court by a common order dismissed w.p.(md).no.1273 of 2006 and allowed w.p.(md).no.8496 of 2008 holding that arulmigu eswari badhrakaliamman temple is a public temple and appellant / harikrishnan could not be its trustee, the collusive compromise effected in o.s.no.37 of 1971 on 30.04.1975 on the file of sub-court, nagercoil, in the absence of hr & ce department will not bind the department and will not clothe harikrishnan, the status of trustee of the temple.11. as against the said common order, dated 22.09.2008 of the learned single judge, appellant harikrishnan filed w.a.(md).nos.614 of 2008 and 710 of 2008 respectively. on 27.03.2012, the writ appellate court by its common judgment dismissed both the appeals upholding the decision of the learned single judge.12. aggrieved by the said common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, the appellants went in appeal to the hon'ble supreme court filing slp(civil) nos.14755 & 14757 of 2012. on 06.08.2012, in the slp, a three judge bench of the hon'ble supreme court ordered as under: ".mr.k.v.viswanathan, learned senior counsel for the common petitioner, prays for withdrawal of these special leave petitions as the petitioner intends to approach the high court for review of the impugned order particularly with regard to the observations made by the high court in para 17 of the impugned order.". and thus, dismissed the slps as withdrawn.13. in pursuance of the said liberty, the present review petitions were filed by the applicants.14. in this connection, it is pertinent to note the submissions of mr.r.ramanlal that the ambit, purport and scope of the review is limited by the terms of the said order of the hon'ble apex court, thus, the applicant cannot travel beyond it, nor re-argue the entire case. there can be quarrel over factual matrix or as to reading or misreading of evidence, but not as to well settled principles of law. review of the judgment or order arises only under limited circumstances viz., when there is error apparent on the face of the record and not otherwise.15. as regards, review power of the writ/constitutional courts, there is no specific provision in the constitution of india, but the principles governing order 47, rule 1 of c.p.c. dealing with review of judgments, orders and decrees of civil courts are generally referred to. in any case, the principle is same. that is, the review is permissible only, when there is error apparent on the face of the record. a court exercising the power of review may be conveniently called a ".review court".. but, it may not be misunderstood with an ".appellate court".. both the courts operates on different parameters. review is entertained to correct a mistake, which is ".apparent on the face of the record"., but it is not for substituting another view. thus, a review cannot be an ".appeal in disguise".. that is how it is said that when two views are possible, it is not a ground for review. a wrong decision or a wrong principle of law can be corrected by an appellate court and not by a review court. correcting an erroneous decision is outside the scope and power of a review court, as it has to be done by an appellate court. thus, there is distinction between an ".erroneous decision". and ".an error apparent on the face of the record".. both cannot be intermixed nor changed, one for the other. thus, under the guise of review, it is not permissible to rehear and correct an erroneous decision. thus, the scope of review is very limited and it has to be considered on the above principles enunciated by the courts in various decisions.16. some times, it becomes necessary to know the backdrop of the case/matter to have a grip of the matter, so as to consider, whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. we hasten to add that it would be only for the limited purpose viz., review and not for rehearing the matter.17. people are worshiping in arulmigu eswari badhra kaliamman temple situate in neendakarai village in kanyakumari district. ponnumuthu nadar wanted to administer the affairs of the temple as an hereditary trustee. he filed o.a.no.61 of 1967 under section 63(a) of the hindu religious and charitable endowment act to declare the temple, a private temple. it was dismissed. the appeal filed in a.p.no.47 of 1967 was also dismissed by the hr & ce commissioner. to set aside the said order of the commissioner, ponnumuthu nadar and his men have filed the statutory suit in o.s.no.37 of 1971 in the sub-court, nagercoil. in the meanwhile, a.p.no.53 of 1974 was filed before the hr & ce commissioner, questioning the decision of the department that the temple is a public temple. the said suit in o.s.no.37 of 1971 was dismissed as against hr & ce department. after that, ponnumuthu nadar and his men seem to have struck a deal with their rivals on record, as defendants and a compromise was recorded and they themselves have given the status of private temple to the said temple and there was an arrangement for trusteeship. it is pertinent to note that the appeal in a.p.no.53 of 1974 filed to disturb the finding of the hr & ce commissioner, namely, the temple is not a private temple, was withdrawn by the plaintiffs and this has also been mentioned in the compromise decree in o.s.no.37 of 1971, passed on 30.04.1975.18. it is relevant to note that already ponnumuthu nadar and his supporters have filed o.a.no.23 of 1967 before the officials of the hr & ce department to declare them as hereditary trustee. it was dismissed. further, the appeal in a.p.no.53 of 1974 was dismissed by the hr & ce commissioner.19. in 1998, certain persons have filed o.s.no.62 of 1998 in the sub- court, nagercoil, in representative capacity, for the villagers of needankarai, for framing a scheme to administer the affairs of arulmigu eswari badhrakaliamman temple alleging maladministration of ponnumuthu nadar's son harikrishnan (the applicant in the review petitions) and his supporters. it has also been pleaded in the suit that the compromise decree in o.s.no.37 of 1971 is collusive and it is not a representative suit and it was decreed behind the back of hr & ce department, thus, it will not bind the department.20. in the said o.s.no.62 of 1998, hr & ce department, as 8th defendant, filed written statement mentioning about the temple affairs being dealt with by the appellant. in the written statement, it has been reiterated that the temple is a public temple and the same has been held in various proceedings viz., o.a.no.23 of 1967 and a.p.no.53 of 1974. ofcourse, the suit was withdrawn subsequently. thereafter, on 18.01.2006, the assistant commissioner, hr & ce department, nagercoil, appointed the executive officer of arulmigu isakki amman temple, muppandal as 'fit person' for administering the affairs of arulmigu eswari badhrakaliamman temple. thereafter, as already pointed out, w.p.(md).no.1273 of 2006 has been filed by the review applicant / harikrishnan and another and the same was dismissed by the writ court by its common order dated 22.09.2008. in pursuance of the said order, the fit person also taken charge of the administration of the temple. findings were rendered by the writ appellate court, on 27.03.2012, in its common judgment in w.a.(md) nos.614 & 710 of 2008 as against the appellants, confirming the common order passed by the writ court negativing the plea of harikrishnan for trusteeship and his plea for giving the status of a private temple to arulmigu eswari badhrakaliamman temple.21. now, in this backdrop of the matter, we have perused para no.17 of the common judgment of the writ appellate court, dated 27.03.2012. there was categorical finding that the compromise decree in o.s.no.37 of 1971 is not binding on the hr & ce department, since it was effected in the absence of the department. a reference about the scheme suit filed in o.s.no.62 of 1998 has been mentioned and dismissal of o.a.no.23 of 1967 wherein the decision of the hr & ce department that the temple is a public temple and dismissal of a.p.no.53 of 1974 on 31.07.1975 are also mentioned. the plea for hereditary trusteeship having been negatived by the department has also been mentioned in the judgment. the writ appellate court in its common judgment in para nos.1 to 15 referred to the entire happenings, steps taken before the department and before the court, ultimately, they all ended with the view that the temple is not a private temple, it is a public temple and neither harikrishnan nor his father or any of their supporters has been ever recognized as hereditary trustees by the hr & ce department and thus, in para no.17 of the judgment similar adverse finding as against appellant has been rendered.22. it is pertinent to note that on the face of such consistent view taken by hierarchy of hr & ce department officials upto the commissioner in the various statutory applications that the temple is a public temple and appellant or his father are not hereditary trustees of the temple and the failure of the father of the appellant and the appellant in their stand that the temple is a private temple and their claim for hereditary trusteeship having been negatived, have also been mentioned in other part of the written statement of the 8th defendant / hr & ce department filed in the scheme suit in o.s.no.62 of 1998, a stray sentence in the very same written statement, quite as against the reality of the said situation, neither confer right of hereditary trusteeship to the appellant nor displace the said consistent view as to the status of the temple as well as the status claimed by the appellant to the temple. this has also been reiterated by the hr & ce department in the writ and in the writ appeal proceedings before this court. thus, no vital aspect of the case has escaped the attention of the writ appellate court and crux of the issue has been considered by the writ appellate court in proper perspective and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. inasmuch as there is no error apparent on the common judgment of the writ appellate court, rendered in w.a.(md).nos.614 & 710 0f 2008, there is no need for reviewing it.23. ofcourse, in the common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, the correct number of the suit in o.s.no.62 of 1998, has been wrongly mentioned as o.s.no.62 of 1988 and further the suit having been filed by some other persons has been wrongly mentioned as filed by the present writ appellants. actually, it was filed by one sivasankaran and few others in representative capacity for the villagers of neendakarai village. in the typed set of papers filed by the appellant himself at serial no.8, the suit number has been wrongly mentioned as o.s.no.62 of 1988, that is how the mistake seems to have crept in, in the common judgment of the writ appellate court. any how, it is a typographical mistake. it can be corrected either suo motu by this court itself or when it is being pointed out to the court. now that, the mistake has been pointed out it need to be corrected.24. in view of the foregoings, the review application nos.59 & 60 of 2012 are dismissed. the typographical mistake in para no.17 of the common judgment of the writ appellate court in w.a.(md).nos.614 & 710 of 2008, dated 27.03.2012 shall be corrected viz., ".o.s.no.62/1998". instead of 'o.s.no.62/1988' and filing of the same ".by sivasankaran and others in representative capacity for the villagers of neendakarai village". instead of 'filed by the present writ appellants'. after effecting the said corrections in para no.17 of common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, fresh copy of the said common judgment shall be supplied to the parties concerned. no costs. gcg/smn2 to 1.the commissioner. hr & ce department, nungambakkam, chennai. 2.the assistant commissioner, hr & ce administration department, nagercoil, kanyakumari district. 3.the executive officer, arulmigu isakki thirukoil, muppandal, thovalai taluk, kanyakumari district.
Judgment:

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED:

30. 08/2013 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE N.PAUL VASANTHAKUMAR and THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.DEVADASS Review Application (MD) No.59 of 2012 and Review Application (MD) No.60 of 2012 in Writ Appeal (MD)Nos.614 & 710 of 2008 Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.59 of 2012 P.Harikrishnan, Managing Trustee, Arulmigu Eswari Padhra Kaliamman Temple, Neendakarai ".B". Village, Esanthangu, Muttom Post, Agastheeswaram Taluk, Kanyakumari District. ... Petitioner/ Appellant/Petitioner Vs 1.The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Administration Department, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 2.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Isakki Thirukoil, Muppandal, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District. ... Respondents/ Respondents/Respondents Review application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. r/w Section 114 of C.P.C., against the common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, made in W.A.(MD).No.614 of 2008. !For petitioner ... Mr.T.R.Rajagopal Senior Counsel for Mr.S.S.Sundar ^For respondents ... Mr.K.Sathiyasingh 1 & 2 Rev.Aplc.(MD).No.60 of 2012:

1. P.Harikrishnan 2.Periyannacha Perumal ... Petitioners/ Appellants/Respondents 4 & 5 Vs 1.The Commissioner. HR & CE Department, Chennai. 2.The Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Mettu Street, Meenakshipuram, Nagercoil. 3.D.Dharmalingam 4.E.Natarajan 5.V.Suyambulingam ... Respondents 1 to 5/ Respondents/Respondents K.Kumaresan (died) 6.R.Ranjitham 7.K.Thurai Raj 8.K.Paulraj 9.Thangadurai ... Respondents/ Respondents/Petitioners Review application is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of C.P.C. r/w Section 114 of C.P.C., against the common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, made in W.A.(MD).No.710 of 2008. For petitioner ... Mr.T.R.Rajagopal, Senior Counsel for Mr.S.S.Sundar For 1st respondent ... Mr.Alagadevan, Special Government Pleader For 2nd respondent ... Mr.K.Sathiyasingh For respondents ... No appearance 3 to 8 For 9th respondent ... Mr.R.Ramanlal :COMMON ORDER

[Order of the Court was delivered by P.DEVADASS, J.]. The appellants in W.A.(MD).Nos.614 & 710 of 2008 seeks review of the common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, rendered by a Division Bench of this Court. 2.In Kanyakumari District, in Agastheeswaram Taluk, in Esanthangu, in Neendakarai Village, there is ".Arulmigu Eswari Badhrakaliamman Temple".. There were continued fights by a group, claiming hereditary trusteeship to administer the affairs of the said Amman temple. It was mainly by one Ponnumuthu Nadar. He fought a long drawn legal battle before the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Authorities, and in various Courts. It was opposed to by a rival group and also by the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Department (hereinafter referred to as ".HR & CE Department). After Ponnumuthu Nadar, his son Harikrishnan and Periyannacha Perumal Nadar, the Review Applicants have continued the fight and are continuing it.

3. Mr.T.R.Rajagopal, learned Senior Counsel for Mr.S.S.Sundar, learned counsel for the Review Applicants / Appellants would contend that as early as in 1975, in the compromise decree passed in O.S.No.37 of 1971 by the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagercoil, the hereditary trusteeship of the appellant's father viz., Ponnumuthu Nadar has been recognized. It was acted upon. After him, his son Harikrishnan / Review Applicant became the Managing Trustee and as such administered the temple affairs since 2006. As per section 6(11) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act, 1959, he has become the ".hereditary trustee". of this religious institution and he cannot be deprived of his office without any notice, however, without notice, the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Nagercoil, on 18.01.2006 appointed an official as ".Fit Person". of the said temple. This is against law, when especially, as per the compromise decree in O.S.No.37 of 1971, Ponnumuthu Nadar acquired trusteeship, his son applicant-Harikrishnan shall not be deprived of his office.

4. The learned Senior Counsel further contended that in O.S.No.62 of 1998 before the Sub-Court, Nagercoil, when certain persons have sought for framing a scheme to administer the affairs of the temple, the HR & CE Department, as 8th defendant, filed written statement, confirming the hereditaryship and administration of the affairs of the Temple by Harikrishnan / appellant for several years. This was also raised in W.A.(MD).Nos.614 & 710 of 2008, which have been filed challenging the common order of the Writ Court, dated 22.09.2008 made in W.P.(MD).Nos.1273 of 2006 & 8496 of 2008 respectively. However, the Writ Appellate Court in its common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, besides wrongly mentioning the said suit number and the persons, who have filed the suit, has not decided the issue in the light of the said admission of the HR & CE Department in the written statement. There are errors apparent on the face of the record, thus, the common judgment of the Writ Appellate Court, is required to be reviewed.

5. Mr.M.Alagathevan, the learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the HR & CE Department contended that a Civil Court cannot decide the hereditaryship in question, there is embargo to do so in Section 108 of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act. The learned Special Government Pleader further contended that the HR & CE Department never recognized the temple as a Private Temple. And at no point of time, the HR & CE Department has recognized either the review applicant or his father or anybody as hereditary trustees of the temple. In fact, it was their repeated demand, which was negatived by the HR & CE Department. The suit in O.S.No.37 of 1971 is a collusive suit. The HR & CE Department is not a party to it. Thus, the compromise effected in the said suit behind the back of the Department will not bind the Department. The Writ Appellate Court in its common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, threadbare dealt with the matter and there is no error apparent on the face of the record, save some typographical mistake crept in, in para No.17 of the common judgment in mentioning the year of the said suit and the plaintiffs. That can be corrected, at any time, either by this Court suo motu or on application by a party. Thus, there is no scope for reviewing the common judgment, dated 27.03.2012.

6. Mr.K.Sathiyasingh, the learned counsel appearing for 2nd respondent (in Review Application(MD)No.59 of 2012 viz., the Executive officer, Arulmigu Isakki Thirukoil, Muppandal, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District, the ".Fit Person". (Thakkar) appointed to administer the Arulmigu Eswari Badhrakaliamman Temple) reiterated the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader.

7. Mr.R.Ramanlal, the learned counsel for 9th respondent (in Review Application (MD) No.60 of 2012), besides reiterating the submissions of the learned Special Government Pleader, submitted that the glamour of Ponnumuthu Nadar, his son and their supporters for trusteeship of the temple has been consistently negatived by the HR & CE Department and the Courts. In the circumstances, a stray sentence, as against the reality of the situation, made by the HR & CE Department, in its written statement in the scheme suit in O.S.No.62 of 1998 will not confer right of trusteeship to Harikrishnan / appellant nor abrogate the consistent view of the HR & CE Department viz., temple being a public temple, neither Ponnumuthu Nadar nor Harikrishnan were recognised as trustees of the temple. The learned counsel further contended that the Applications were directed as per the leave obtained in the Special Leave Petition filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is only with reference to para No.17 of the common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, however, the appellant is arguing afresh the whole case, which has been rejected wholesale by the Writ Court as well as by the Writ Appellate Court. The learned counsel further contended that since there is no error apparent in the said common judgment, there is no scope for review, except correcting certain typographical mistakes in para No.17 of the said common judgment, in mentioning the year of a suit and the plaintiffs and such mistakes can be corrected at any time, but that will not enable the applicants to seek review of the entire judgment.

8. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned Senior Counsel for the Review Applicants, learned Special Government Pleader for the HR & CE Department, learned counsel for the Executive Officer of the temple and the learned counsel for the other contesting respondent, perused the common judgment of the Writ Appellate Court, dated 27.03.2012 and the relevant portions of the records of the case, which are necessary for the disposal of the Review Applications.

9. As already stated, there was long drawn legal battle to have the status of trusteeship of Arulmigu Eswari Badhrakaliamman Temple in Neendakarai Village. Ponnumuthu Nadar was a star among the claimants. After him, the battle is being continued by his son Harikrishnan / Review Applicant and his associates. On 18.01.2006, the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Nagercoil, appointed the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Isakki Amman Temple, Muppandal, Kanyakumari District as ".Fit Person". for administering the affairs of Arulmigu Eswari Badhrakaliamman Temple. This has prompted Harikrishnan and another to file W.P.(MD).No.1273 of 2006 challenging the said order. One Kumaresan, filed W.P.(MD).No.8496 of 2008 for a direction to HR & CE Department, to take control of the said temple.

10. On 22.09.2008, the Writ Court by a common order dismissed W.P.(MD).No.1273 of 2006 and allowed W.P.(MD).No.8496 of 2008 holding that Arulmigu Eswari Badhrakaliamman Temple is a public temple and appellant / Harikrishnan could not be its trustee, the collusive compromise effected in O.S.No.37 of 1971 on 30.04.1975 on the file of Sub-Court, Nagercoil, in the absence of HR & CE Department will not bind the Department and will not clothe Harikrishnan, the status of trustee of the temple.

11. As against the said common order, dated 22.09.2008 of the learned Single Judge, appellant Harikrishnan filed W.A.(MD).Nos.614 of 2008 and 710 of 2008 respectively. On 27.03.2012, the Writ Appellate Court by its common judgment dismissed both the appeals upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge.

12. Aggrieved by the said Common Judgment, dated 27.03.2012, the appellants went in appeal to the Hon'ble Supreme Court filing SLP(Civil) Nos.14755 & 14757 of 2012. On 06.08.2012, in the SLP, a Three Judge Bench of the Hon'ble Supreme Court ordered as under: ".Mr.K.V.Viswanathan, learned Senior counsel for the common petitioner, prays for withdrawal of these special leave petitions as the petitioner intends to approach the High Court for review of the impugned order particularly with regard to the observations made by the High Court in para 17 of the impugned order.". and thus, dismissed the SLPs as withdrawn.

13. In pursuance of the said liberty, the present Review Petitions were filed by the applicants.

14. In this connection, it is pertinent to note the submissions of Mr.R.Ramanlal that the ambit, purport and scope of the Review is limited by the terms of the said order of the Hon'ble Apex Court, thus, the applicant cannot travel beyond it, nor re-argue the entire case. There can be quarrel over factual matrix or as to reading or misreading of evidence, but not as to well settled principles of law. Review of the judgment or order arises only under limited circumstances viz., when there is error apparent on the face of the record and not otherwise.

15. As regards, review power of the Writ/Constitutional Courts, there is no specific provision in the Constitution of India, but the principles governing Order 47, Rule 1 of C.P.C. dealing with review of judgments, orders and decrees of Civil Courts are generally referred to. In any case, the principle is same. That is, the review is permissible only, when there is error apparent on the face of the record. A Court exercising the power of review may be conveniently called a ".Review Court".. But, it may not be misunderstood with an ".Appellate Court".. Both the Courts operates on different parameters. Review is entertained to correct a mistake, which is ".apparent on the face of the record"., but it is not for substituting another view. Thus, a review cannot be an ".appeal in disguise".. That is how it is said that when two views are possible, it is not a ground for review. A wrong decision or a wrong principle of law can be corrected by an Appellate Court and not by a Review Court. Correcting an erroneous decision is outside the scope and power of a Review Court, as it has to be done by an Appellate Court. Thus, there is distinction between an ".erroneous decision". and ".an error apparent on the face of the record".. Both cannot be intermixed nor changed, one for the other. Thus, under the guise of review, it is not permissible to rehear and correct an erroneous decision. Thus, the scope of review is very limited and it has to be considered on the above principles enunciated by the Courts in various decisions.

16. Some times, it becomes necessary to know the backdrop of the case/matter to have a grip of the matter, so as to consider, whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment or order sought to be reviewed. We hasten to add that it would be only for the limited purpose viz., review and not for rehearing the matter.

17. People are worshiping in Arulmigu Eswari Badhra Kaliamman Temple situate in Neendakarai Village in Kanyakumari District. Ponnumuthu Nadar wanted to administer the affairs of the temple as an hereditary trustee. He filed O.A.No.61 of 1967 under Section 63(a) of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowment Act to declare the temple, a private temple. It was dismissed. The appeal filed in A.P.No.47 of 1967 was also dismissed by the HR & CE Commissioner. To set aside the said order of the Commissioner, Ponnumuthu Nadar and his men have filed the statutory suit in O.S.No.37 of 1971 in the Sub-Court, Nagercoil. In the meanwhile, A.P.No.53 of 1974 was filed before the HR & CE Commissioner, questioning the decision of the Department that the temple is a public temple. The said suit in O.S.No.37 of 1971 was dismissed as against HR & CE Department. After that, Ponnumuthu Nadar and his men seem to have struck a deal with their rivals on record, as defendants and a compromise was recorded and they themselves have given the status of private temple to the said temple and there was an arrangement for trusteeship. It is pertinent to note that the appeal in A.P.No.53 of 1974 filed to disturb the finding of the HR & CE Commissioner, namely, the temple is not a private temple, was withdrawn by the plaintiffs and this has also been mentioned in the compromise decree in O.S.No.37 of 1971, passed on 30.04.1975.

18. It is relevant to note that already Ponnumuthu Nadar and his supporters have filed O.A.No.23 of 1967 before the Officials of the HR & CE Department to declare them as hereditary trustee. It was dismissed. Further, the appeal in A.P.No.53 of 1974 was dismissed by the HR & CE Commissioner.

19. In 1998, certain persons have filed O.S.No.62 of 1998 in the Sub- Court, Nagercoil, in representative capacity, for the Villagers of Needankarai, for framing a scheme to administer the affairs of Arulmigu Eswari Badhrakaliamman Temple alleging maladministration of Ponnumuthu Nadar's son Harikrishnan (the applicant in the Review Petitions) and his supporters. It has also been pleaded in the suit that the compromise decree in O.S.No.37 of 1971 is collusive and it is not a representative suit and it was decreed behind the back of HR & CE Department, thus, it will not bind the Department.

20. In the said O.S.No.62 of 1998, HR & CE Department, as 8th defendant, filed written statement mentioning about the temple affairs being dealt with by the appellant. In the written statement, it has been reiterated that the temple is a public temple and the same has been held in various proceedings viz., O.A.No.23 of 1967 and A.P.No.53 of 1974. Ofcourse, the suit was withdrawn subsequently. Thereafter, on 18.01.2006, the Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Department, Nagercoil, appointed the Executive Officer of Arulmigu Isakki Amman Temple, Muppandal as 'Fit Person' for administering the affairs of Arulmigu Eswari Badhrakaliamman Temple. Thereafter, as already pointed out, W.P.(MD).No.1273 of 2006 has been filed by the Review Applicant / Harikrishnan and another and the same was dismissed by the Writ Court by its common order dated 22.09.2008. In pursuance of the said order, the Fit Person also taken charge of the administration of the temple. Findings were rendered by the Writ Appellate Court, on 27.03.2012, in its common judgment in W.A.(MD) Nos.614 & 710 of 2008 as against the appellants, confirming the common order passed by the Writ Court negativing the plea of Harikrishnan for trusteeship and his plea for giving the status of a private temple to Arulmigu Eswari Badhrakaliamman Temple.

21. Now, in this backdrop of the matter, we have perused para No.17 of the common judgment of the Writ Appellate Court, dated 27.03.2012. There was categorical finding that the compromise decree in O.S.No.37 of 1971 is not binding on the HR & CE Department, since it was effected in the absence of the Department. A reference about the scheme suit filed in O.S.No.62 of 1998 has been mentioned and dismissal of O.A.No.23 of 1967 wherein the decision of the HR & CE Department that the temple is a public temple and dismissal of A.P.No.53 of 1974 on 31.07.1975 are also mentioned. The plea for hereditary trusteeship having been negatived by the Department has also been mentioned in the judgment. The Writ Appellate Court in its common judgment in para Nos.1 to 15 referred to the entire happenings, steps taken before the Department and before the Court, ultimately, they all ended with the view that the temple is not a private temple, it is a public temple and neither Harikrishnan nor his father or any of their supporters has been ever recognized as hereditary trustees by the HR & CE Department and thus, in para No.17 of the judgment similar adverse finding as against appellant has been rendered.

22. It is pertinent to note that on the face of such consistent view taken by hierarchy of HR & CE Department Officials upto the Commissioner in the various statutory applications that the temple is a public temple and appellant or his father are not hereditary trustees of the temple and the failure of the father of the appellant and the appellant in their stand that the temple is a private temple and their claim for hereditary trusteeship having been negatived, have also been mentioned in other part of the written statement of the 8th defendant / HR & CE Department filed in the scheme suit in O.S.No.62 of 1998, a stray sentence in the very same written statement, quite as against the reality of the said situation, neither confer right of hereditary trusteeship to the appellant nor displace the said consistent view as to the status of the temple as well as the status claimed by the appellant to the temple. This has also been reiterated by the HR & CE Department in the Writ and in the Writ Appeal proceedings before this Court. Thus, no vital aspect of the case has escaped the attention of the Writ Appellate Court and crux of the issue has been considered by the Writ Appellate Court in proper perspective and there is no error apparent on the face of the record. Inasmuch as there is no error apparent on the common judgment of the Writ Appellate Court, rendered in W.A.(MD).Nos.614 & 710 0f 2008, there is no need for reviewing it.

23. Ofcourse, in the common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, the correct number of the suit in O.S.No.62 of 1998, has been wrongly mentioned as O.S.No.62 of 1988 and further the suit having been filed by some other persons has been wrongly mentioned as filed by the present writ appellants. Actually, it was filed by one Sivasankaran and few others in representative capacity for the Villagers of Neendakarai Village. In the typed set of papers filed by the appellant himself at Serial No.8, the suit number has been wrongly mentioned as O.S.No.62 of 1988, that is how the mistake seems to have crept in, in the common judgment of the Writ Appellate Court. Any how, it is a typographical mistake. It can be corrected either suo motu by this Court itself or when it is being pointed out to the Court. Now that, the mistake has been pointed out it need to be corrected.

24. In view of the foregoings, the Review Application Nos.59 & 60 of 2012 are dismissed. The typographical mistake in para No.17 of the common judgment of the Writ Appellate Court in W.A.(MD).Nos.614 & 710 of 2008, dated 27.03.2012 shall be corrected viz., ".O.S.No.62/1998". instead of 'O.S.No.62/1988' and filing of the same ".by Sivasankaran and others in representative capacity for the Villagers of Neendakarai Village". instead of 'filed by the present Writ Appellants'. After effecting the said corrections in para No.17 of common judgment, dated 27.03.2012, fresh copy of the said common judgment shall be supplied to the parties concerned. No costs. gcg/smn2 To 1.The Commissioner. HR & CE Department, Nungambakkam, Chennai. 2.The Assistant Commissioner, HR & CE Administration Department, Nagercoil, Kanyakumari District. 3.The Executive Officer, Arulmigu Isakki Thirukoil, Muppandal, Thovalai Taluk, Kanyakumari District.