M/S Nagarjuna Residency vs Vishwas U Lad
2022 Latest Caselaw 292 Kant

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                   DHARWAD BENCH
      DATED THIS THE 07TH DAY OF JANUARY 2022
                           BEFORE
 THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
                   R.P.NO.100003/2022
BETWEEN

M/S NAGARJUNA RESIDENCY
A PARTNERSHIP FIRM HAVING ITS OFFICE
AT SP ROAD, PATEL NAGAR, HOSPET-583201,
REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING PARTNER,
SRI M.NAGARJUNA.
                                            ... PETITIONER
(BY SRI PATIL M.H. ADV.)

AND

1.    VISHWAS U LAD,
      AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,
      SON OF UDAYSING LAD,
      R/O HOSPET ROAD, SANDUR-583119,
      BELLARY DISTRICT.

2.    SANTOSH LAD,
      AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS,
      SON OF SHIVAJI V.LAD,
      R/O HOSPET ROAD,
      SANDUR-583119,
      BELLARY DISTRICT.

3.    VINAY E.LAD,
      AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
      SON OF EKANTH V.LAD,
      KRISHNA NAGAR, SANDUR-583119.
      BELLARY DISTRICT.
                                          ... RESPONDENTS

      THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ
WITH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
PRAYING THIS COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED
06.03.2021 PASSED IN CRP.NO.1126/2009, IN THE INTEREST
OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                                2




     THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE
COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:


                          : ORDER :

Perused the grounds urged in the review

petition. On perusal of the same I would find that the

review petitioner intends to re-argue the case. The

grounds urged in review petition clearly discloses that

the primary intention of the review petitioner is to

seek re-consideration of subject, which is

impermissible under order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908.

2. This review petition is liable to be dismissed

on two counts.

3. It is a trite law that power to review is a

restricted power. The Court cannot under cover of it,

arrogate to itself the power to decide the case merely

because review petitioner feels that the assessment of

evidence done formally was faulty or even incorrect or

that the order under review is erroneous order.

Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and

have to be strictly confined to the scope and the ambit

of Order XLVII of CPC.

4. Secondly this petition is not filed by

Advocate who had argued the case. The Apex Court in

the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and

another Vs. N.Raju Reddiar and another reported

in (1997) 9 Supreme Court Cases 736 has held

that the review petition is not maintainable, if it is not

filed by Advocate on record. The Apex Court has also

deprecated the practice of Advocates who have not

argued the main matter indulging in filing a review

petition. Therefore, in the light of principles laid by the

Honb'el Apex Court in the judgment cited supra, the

present review petition filed by the present counsel

who was not on record and has not argued cannot be

permitted to argue the matter.

5. The review cannot be treated as rehearing

of revision petition or appeal as the case may be.

Therefore, the review petitioner has not made out a

case to bring it within the ambit of the provisions of

Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC.

6. Even otherwise the review petition cannot

be entertained that as the grounds urged in the review

petition do not indicate any error apparent on the

face. On the contrary the grounds urged in the review

petition intend to re-open the case, which is not

permissible under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC.

Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.

Sd/-

JUDGE

EM