The Commissioner Kalaburagi vs Syed Gesudaraz Khadri
2022 Latest Caselaw 5924 Kant

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT KALABURAGI BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 01 ST DAY OF APRIL, 2022

                          PRESENT

           THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G.NARENDAR

                            AND

        THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

            REVIEW PETITION NO.200023/2021
                           IN
           WRIT APPEAL NO.200162/2019 (LB-RES)

BETWEEN:

THE COMMISSIONER KALABURGI
URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
KALABURGI.585102
                                              ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI SHIVAKUMAR TENGLI, ADV.)

AND:

SYED GESUDARAZ KHADRI
S/O KHADRI
AGE 59 YEARS
OCC: SERVICE
VENKATESH NAGAR
STATION BAZAR
KALABURGI.585102.
                                             ... RESPONDENT

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 49 &
RULE 10 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
ORDER DATED 28.02.2020 PASSED IN W.A.NO.200162 OF 2019.

     THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR 'ORDERS' THIS
DAY, NAGAPRASANNA J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
                              2




                          ORDER

The appellant in W.A. No.200162/2019 has filed the

subject review petition seeking review of the order of the

bench dated 28.02.2020 whereby the appeal filed by the

review petitioner was allowed in part by issuing certain

directions with regard to the payment to be made by the

respondent within three months therein. The petitioner has

preferred subject review petition on the ground that the

order is now turning into a precedent and is causing

prejudice to the cases which are filed subsequent to the

order that was passed on 28.02.2020.

2. This can hardly be any ground for seeking a

review of the order passed in W.A. No.200162/19. Any

other ground that is urged in review petition, if considered

would fall foul of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati and Others

reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 (paragraph 20.2) which reads

as under:

" 20.2. 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 reheard 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. For the aforesaid reasons we do not find any

error to review the order that was passed. Review petition

stands dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ykl CT-HR