Karnataka High Court
Late K V Kannan vs Shri R S Srinivasan on 14 November, 2025
-1-
RP No. 105 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
REVIEW PETITION NO. 105 OF 2025
IN RFA.No.1815/2017 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
LATE K.V. KANNAN,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
1. MRS. JAMBU KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
W/O LATE K.V. KANNAN.
2. MR.DASHARATHI K.V.,
S/O LATE K.V. KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT APARTMENT NO.A1-513,
SOBHA DEWFLOWER,
SARAKKI MAIN ROAD,
J.P. NAGAR, 1ST PHASE,
BANGALORE- 560 078.
EARLIER R/AT :
"VEDANTA"
NO.601.15TH CROSS,
J.P. NAGAR, 1ST PHASE,
BANGALORE.
3. MRS. SHEELA,
W/O LATE SRIPATHI K.V.,
S/O LATE K.V. KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
4. MRS. SHRUTHI RANJANI,
D/O LATE SRIPATHI K.V.,
S/O LATE K.V. KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
-2-
RP No. 105 of 2025
5. MS. SRINIDHI,
D/O LATE SRIPATHI,
S/O LATE K.V. KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
6. MR. SUDHARSHAN K.V.,
S/O LATE K.V. SRIPATHI,
S/O LATE K.V.KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 TO 6 ARE
R/AT FLAT NO.104,
SRI. SAILAM APARTMENT,
NO.59, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
GAVIPURAM EXTENSION,
BANGALORE- 560 019.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SURAJ S., ADVOCATE )
AND:
SHRI.R.S.SRINIVASAN,
S/O LATE R.S. SEETHARMAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
PARTNER, M/S.ASHOKA INDUSTRIES,
SY.NO.18/3, KALENA AGRAHARA,
BEGUR HOBLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE- 560 076.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRATIK PANY, ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO
PERUSE AND REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2024
PASSED IN THE RFA BEARING NO.1815/2017(DEC) AND
ALLOW THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY,
ALLOW THE SAID REGULAR FIRST APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY
THE PETITIONER THEREIN.
-3-
RP No. 105 of 2025
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.10.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This review petition is filed by appellants in RFA.No.1815/ 2017, on the file of Co-ordinate Bench of this Court under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC, to review the judgment and decree passed in RFA.No.1815/2017, dated 20th December 2024.
2. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the review petitioners and the respondent.
3. The main contentions of the review petitioners are that, flow of title chart shown in the judgment at page No.18 is incorrect; Plaintiff is claiming right, title and interest in respect of Survey No.19/1, measuring 1 acre 38 guntas, but the extent mentioned in the title chart is -4- RP No. 105 of 2025 incorrect and location of the property is also incorrect; On the basis of the said incorrect table, this Court passed the judgment; Therefore, there is a mistake apparent on the face of the record, which requires to be reviewed.
4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner further contended that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has relied much on the documents produced by the defendant and much importance was not given to the documents produced by the plaintiff and they were not properly appreciated; The trial Court had not given an opportunity to the appellants to cross-examine DW-1; The defendant took about 14 adjournments to lead examination-in-chief of DW-1 and produced about 500 documents, which were marked. Plaintiff wanted to go through the said documents to prepare for cross-examination, but the trial Court did not give sufficient opportunity to cross-examine DW-1; The trial Court rejected the prayer and taken that the plaintiff had not cross-examined DW-1; Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an application to recall the said order, but the trial Court rejected the said application and did not give an -5- RP No. 105 of 2025 opportunity to cross-examine DW-1, as such, it was a denial of natural justice to the plaintiff. This fact was brought to the notice of the Court and this Court, without considering the same, looked into the documents produced by the defendant. It is also a mistake apparent on the face of the record.
5. Learned counsel for the review petitioner further contended that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while deciding RFA.No.1815/2017, has not considered the materials placed on record by both the parties properly and decided the case. Therefore, it is also a mistake apparent on the face of the record, which requires review of the said judgment and decree passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Hence, prayed to allow the review petition.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that, this Court while passing the judgment in RFA.No.1815/2017, had taken into consideration all the facts and on re-appreciating the materials, passed the -6- RP No. 105 of 2025 impugned judgment. The submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that there are mistakes in the title chart, is not sustainable. In para No.22, it is specifically mentioned that, "the respondent in the written statement filed on 23.10.2007 and additional written statement filed on 23.01.2012 and 18.12.2014, contended that the flow of title of both the property belonging to the plaintiff, as well as the defendant, which is narrated in the following table along with its relevant boundaries". The said chart was not prepared by the Court; The flow of title chart was prepared on the basis of the documents produced by both the sides. During the trial, it was not denied or disputed; Hence, there is no mistake in the said chart; The title flowchart was not in dispute; The real dispute between the parties was in respect of extent and location of the land held by the plaintiff; The findings were not based on the flow of the title chart, but on the appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence produced by both parties to the suit; Hence, there is no mistake apparent on the face of the records.
-7-RP No. 105 of 2025
7. Learned counsel for the respondent further contended that the documents were exhibited and marked before the Court, and copies of the same were made available to the plaintiff prior to cross-examination; The plaintiff was also given an opportunity to cross-examine the relevant witnesses; Most of the documents were revenue records/public documents; It is not the case that the defendant did not offer the witness for cross-examination; on the contrary, when the defendant's witness was present, the plaintiff did not cross-examine him; Therefore, the Court cannot reject the documents produced and marked by the defendant, solely on the ground that the defendant's witness was not cross-examined by the plaintiff or that the plaintiff was not granted an adjournment for cross-examination; This Court, based on the materials available on record, has passed the judgment with detailed reasons; Consequently, there are no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review of the judgment passed by the -8- RP No. 105 of 2025 Co-ordinate Bench in RFA No.1815/2017. Hence, the review petition deserves to be dismissed with costs.
8. Undisputedly, the scope of review is very limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and does not extend to a re-hearing of the appeal on merits or a fresh determination of the case.
9. In order to appreciate the scope of the review petition and for the benefit of both the parties, reference may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal -vs- State Tax Officer1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the judgment of Constitution Bench in the case of Beghar Foundation -vs- K.S.Puttaswamy; The gist of the judgment of Constitution Bench in the afore cited judgment are stated at Para-16, which are as below :
1
(2024) 2 SCC 362 -9- RP No. 105 of 2025 " 16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
16.2. A judgment pronounced by the court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
16.3. 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.
16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected".
16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
16.7. An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any
- 10 -
RP No. 105 of 2025long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."
10. In the present case, the repeated submission of learned counsel for review petitioner is that the flow of title chart mentioned in the judgment is incorrect, therefore, the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench on the basis of the said flow of chart, is incorrect. As rightly stated by the learned counsel for the respondent, the said flow of chart was not prepared by the Court and reasons do not support the said contentions of the petitioner. The said statement shows the date of acquisition of property, mode of transfer, its date and boundaries mentioned in the documents. It was prepared by the defendant in his written statement and the same was reproduced in the impugned judgment. However, the real dispute between the parties in the suit is with respect to extent of the property held by the plaintiff and its location (North or South). The remaining facts regarding
- 11 -
RP No. 105 of 2025the boundaries, as mentioned in the respective documents under which the plaintiff and the defendant claims title and possession, are not seriously disputed. The plaintiff contended that his property measures 1 acre and 38 guntas, and that 18 guntas of his land has been encroached by the defendant, who had constructed a building on the said land. These crucial facts were determined by referring to the documents available on the record. Therefore, there is no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned judgment as contended by the learned counsel for review petitioner.
11. On going through the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA.No.1815/2017, dated 20.12.2024, the Co-ordinate Bench has considered the contentions urged by the petitioner and they were addressed. We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record to review the said judgment and decree passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The grounds made out in the review petition are nothing, but calling upon the Court to rehear and pass fresh judgment, that is
- 12 -
RP No. 105 of 2025not permissible, as held by the Apex Court in the case referred supra.
As a result, the review petition is devoid of any merits, hence dismissed.
Since the review petition itself is dismissed, IA.No.2/2025 filed for the relief of temporary injunction does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, IA.No.2/2025 and all other applications, if any pending, stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/