Sri Srinivasa vs Smt Chowdamma
2021 Latest Caselaw 5947 Kant

  IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

      DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

                       BEFORE

       THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

       REVIEW PETITION NO.362 OF 2021
                     IN
 REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2032 OF 2006 (PAR)

BETWEEN

SRI. SRINIVASA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
S/O LATE MUNISWAMAPPA,
RESIDING AT HOLUR VILLAGE,
HOLUR HOBLI,
KOLAR TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

SHIVASHANKARAPPA,
(SINCE DECEASED REP. BY
HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
PETITIONER)
                                       ...PETITIONER

(BY SRI. RAMAMURTHY H.S., ADVOCATE - ABSENT)

AND

SMT. CHOWDAMMA,
(SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS)
  1. SRI. GOOLEGOWDA,
     AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
     S/O LATE CHOWDAMMA,
     RESIDING AT JADERI VILLAGE,
     HOLUR HOBLI,
     KOLAR TALUK,
     KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
                          2



  2. SRI. CHANDRAPPA,
     AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
     S/O LATE VENKATRAMANA,
     RESIDING AT HOLUR VILLAGE,
     HOLUR HOBLI,
     KOLAR TALUK,
     KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

  3. SRI. B. RAMESH KUMAR,
     AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
     S/O BALAKRISHNAPPA,
     RESIDING AT HOLUR VILLAGE,
     HOLUR HOBLI,
     KOLAR TALUK,
     KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.

  4. THE MANAGER/SECRETARY,
     SFSCS LTD., VADAGUR VILLAGE,
     HUTHUR VILLAGE,
     KOLAR TALUK,
     KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
                                    ...RESPONDENTS


      THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER
XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CODE OF CIVIL
PROCEDURE, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO ALLOW
THE REVIEW PETITION, REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED
06TH AUGUST, 2021 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN
REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2032 OF 2006 AND TO
DISMISS THE REGULAR SECOND APPEAL AND GRANT SUCH
RELIEFS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.


     THIS  REVIEW   PETITION COMING   ON  FOR
ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT, DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
                                   3


                            ORDER

This review petition is filed challenging the order

dated 6th August, 2021 passed in Regular Second Appeal

No.2032 of 2006.

2. The said appeal has been disposed of after hearing

the learned counsel for the parties on merits. It is the duty

of the review petitioner to make out a case as to error

apparent on the face of the record. In that view of the

matter, I do not find any ground to review the order dated

06th August, 2021. At this juncture, it is also useful to refer

to the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of

KAMLESH VERMA V. MAYAVATHI AND OTHERS reported in

AIR 2013 SC 3301, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has

laid down principles with regard to maintainability of the

Review Petition. The same is extracted herein:

"16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

          A)      When    the     review   will   be
                 maintainable:-

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not

within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram vs. Neki, AIR 1922 PC 112 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., (1955) 1 SCR 520, to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India vs. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., JT 2013 (8) SC 275.

B) When the review will not be maintainable:

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."

3. Applying the principles laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the aforementioned decision to the case on

hand, the review petitioner has not made out any

acceptable ground for review by urging that there is an

error apparent on the face of the record. Resultantly,

review petition fails and accordingly, dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

ARK