R Susheela vs Chikkamaramma
2022 Latest Caselaw 3503 Kant

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

          DATED THIS THE 02ND DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                            BEFORE

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

           REVIEW PETITION NO.307 OF 2022
                         IN
        REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.2573 OF 2017

BETWEEN:

R. Susheela
W/o Ramachandrasetty
Aged about 55 years
R/o Andanaiah Extension
Kunigal Town
Tumkur District
Karnataka State.
                                                     ...Petitioner
(By Sri M. Ganesh, Advocate)

AND:

Chikkamaramma
W/o b. Veerabhadraiah
Major
R/o K.R.S. Agrahara
Kuvempunagar
Kunigal.
                                                  ... Respondent

      This review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read
with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure and praying to
review the judgment and order passed in RSA No.2573/2017
dated 26.07.2021 and restore the file RSA No.2573/2017 for
disposal in accordance with law in the interest of justice.
                                  2




      This Review Petition coming on for admission, this day
court made the following:

                           ORDER

Appellant in Regular Second Appeal No.2573 of 2017 has

preferred this Review Petition, praying to restore the RSA

No.2573 of 2017 for fresh disposal.

2. Heard the learned counsel appearing for the review

petitioner. Taking into consideration the finding recorded by this

court at paragraph 8 of its judgment, dated 26.07.2021, passed

in aforementioned regular second appeal, I am of the view that

there is no error apparent on the face of the record. That apart,

it is well-settled principle of law that the review jurisdiction

cannot be exercised to re-hear the case afresh. It is the duty of

the review petitioner to make out a case that there is error

apparent on the face of the record. In that view of the matter, I

do not find any ground to review. In this regard, it is 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, at

paragraph 16 of the judgment 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 principle laid down by the Hon'ble Apex

Court in the aforementioned decision, the petitioner has not

made out any 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

SB