The Accountant General (A And E) vs Chennavva W/O Late Basavannayya ...
2021 Latest Caselaw 3702 Kant

                           :1:


           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH

       DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
                         BEFORE
       THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

             REVIEW PETITION No.1602/2012

BETWEEN:

1.     THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL (A and E)
       KARNATAKA STATE, BANGALORE.

2.     THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER,
       DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICE,
       D.C. COMPOUND, DHARWAD.

3.     THE SECRETARY (POLITICAL PENSION),
       KARNATAKA STAFF AND AMINISTRATION,
       M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE.

4.     THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
       DHARWAD DISTRICT,
       DHARWAD.                   ...PETITIONERS

(BY SHRI.V.S.KALASURMATH, HCGP)

AND:

1.     CHENNAVVA,
        W/O LATE BASAVANNAYYA HIREMATH,
       SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRs

1a)    SOMANINGAYYA,
       S/O BASAVANNAYYA @ BASAYYA HIREMATH,
       AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,

1b)    PARAVVA,
       D/O SANGAYYA GAVIMATH,
       AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
                             :2:


1c)   SANGAYYA,
      S/O BASAVANNAYYA @ BASAYYA HIREMATH,
      SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRs

      1(c)a) GIRIJA ALLAYS GADIGEMMA,
             W/O SANGAYYA,
             R/AT MADAKIHANALLI,
             KALAGATAGI TALUK,
             DHARWAD DISTRICT.

      1(c(b)ROOPA W/O LATE SANGAYYA,
            RESIDING OF MUNNOLI VILLAGE,
            KUNDAGOL TALUK,
            DHARWAD DISTRICT.         RESPONDENTS

(BY SHRI.H.M.DHARIGOND, ADV. FOR
     PROPOSED R1(b), R1(c) (a) and (b),
      R1 (c) DECEASED,
     PROPOSED R1 (a) SERVED)

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC AGAINST THE JUDGMENT AND
ORDER DATED 14.08.2007 IN W.P.No.16921/2005 ON THE FILE
OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU.

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

                           ORDER

1. The State is before this Court seeking for review of

the order dated 14.08.2007 passed in

W.P.No.16921/2005 and for dismissal of the said

writ petition.

2. By order dated 14.08.2007, this Court had directed

the petitioner therein - the respondent herein to

submit the documents which were to be

considered by the respondents therein as

regards the application made for family pension.

3. The said order having been passed on 14.08.2007,

the petitioner therein submitted the documents

and the order has been acted upon and the

pension amounts have been released to the

petitioner therein.

4. The only grounds which have been made out by

the State in the present review petition is that the

State could not place certain documents on record

before this Court when the order sought to be

reviewed was passed. Order XLVII Rule 1 reads as

under:

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 respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.

[Explanation. The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]

5. In terms of XLVII Rule 1, a review can be sought

for only on the ground there is an exfacie error in

the order passed and/or any subsequent event

having occurred which has a material impact on

the order passed.

6. In the present case, what is sought to be relied

upon by the State are certain documents which

were in existence prior to the order having been

passed. The same if at all ought to have been

brought to the notice of the Court at the time when

the order was passed or before that. The order

sought to be reviewed having been passed in the

year 2007, the review petition has been filed in the

year 2012 after a period of 5 years. This also does

not inspire any confidence.

7. In view of the above, there being no grounds made

out for a review of the order dated 14.08.2007, the

review petition stands dismissed.

8. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that

on account of the pendency of the review

petition though an order had been passed for

release of the family pension, the amounts have

not been released. Instead of once again driving

the respondents to another litigation, the

petitioner/State is directed to act in terms of the

order dated 26.10.2007 passed by the 1st

respondent/State directing the Deputy

Commissioner to release the amounts at the

earliest within a period of 30 days of the receipt of

certified copy of this order.

[Sd/-] JUDGE

Jm/-