Karnataka High Court

Sri. Praveen K S S/O.K Sharanappa vs Smt. Madhushree M.W/O.Praveen ... on 10 March, 2022

Bench: P.N.Desai

                             1




              IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
                      DHARWAD BENCH

           DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF MARCH, 2022

                          BEFORE

             THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.N.DESAI


              REVIEW PETITION NO.100032/2021


BETWEEN:

PRAVEEN K S S/O.K SHARANAPPA
AGE. 40 YEARS, OCC. SENIOR MANAGER
AT SYNCICATE BANK, HAVERI CITY
R/O.BEHIND P AND T QUARATERS
RAILWAY STATION ROAD, HAVERI
TQ. AND DIST.HAVERI
NOW TRANSFERRED TO
CANARA BANK REGIONAL OFFICE,
KALBURGI

                                               ...PETITIONER.

(BY SHRI SRINAND A PACHHAPURE, ADVOCATE.)


AND:

SMT. MADHUSHREE M.W/O.PRAVEEN K.S.
AGE. 34 YEARS, OCC. DOMESTIC WORK,
R/O. PRESENTLY RESIDING AT MADHUSADANA
4TH CROSS, NEAR VALMIKI KALYANA
MANTAPA AKASHAVANI, HOSAPETE POST
DIST: BALLARI

                                             ...RESPONDENT.

      THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1
READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE,
1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 03.08.2021, MADE
IN C.P.NO.100060/2020 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, IN
THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, ETC.,.
                               2




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


                            ORDER

This review petition is filed for review of the order

dated 3.8.2021 passed by this Court in Civil Petition

No.100060/2020 which was filed under Section 24 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, wherein this Court by

allowing the petition filed by the wife ordered to withdrawal

of M.C.No.63/2016 from the Court of Prl. Judge, Family

Court, Haveri and transferred it to the Court of Senior Civil

Judge and JMFC, Hosapete, for disposal in accordance with

law.

2. Heard Shri Srinand A. Pachhapure, learned

counsel for the petitioner at the stage of admission itself.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner

contended five grounds for allowing the review petition

which are as under:

a) The petitioner is now transferred to Canara

Bank, Kalaburgi, vide official order dated 1.7.2021 and he

has joined to duty on 26.7.2021 at Kalaburagi Branch.

Therefore, it will be difficult for husband review petitioner

to attend the Court at Haveri.

b) The petitioner met with an accident and has

undergone operation for lisfranc's fracture dislocation of

left foot and he is under follow up treatment and was

advised table work for six months.

c) The petitioner's son is studying at Haveri with

his parents, so he has to visit his parents and son at

Haveri. Therefore to attend the Court at Hosapete may

cause great hardship and physical strain to him.

d) The distance between Kalaburgi to Hosapete is

about 304 kilometers and it will cause great hardship and

inconvenience to him in view of injury to his leg.

e) The petitioner is ready to bear the expenses of

respondent. On these five grounds the review petitioner

has prayed to review the order passed by this Court by

allowing this petition.

4. Perused the petition averments and also the

order passed in Civil Petition dated 3.8.2021 and also the

documents filed by the review petitioner regarding his

transfer order and meeting with an accident and lodging

the complaint.

5. It is seen that this review petitioner was

respondent in C.P.No.100060/2020. The said petition

under section 24 of CPC filed by his wife seeking to

transfer the petition filed by her in M.C.No.63/2016

seeking divorce, from the Court of Principal Judge, Family

Court, Haveri, to the Court of Senior Civil Judge and JMFC,

Hosapete. It is evident that the said divorce petition is

pending from the year 2016. This Court on considering the

rival arguments and referring to the principles stated in the

decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court has

passed the impugned order by withdrawing the said case

and transferring to the Court at Hosapete for disposal in

accordance with law.

6. The first ground that the review petitioner is

transferred to Kalaburgi and he has joined the duty at

Kalaburagi on 26.7.2021 is not tenable as it is a

subsequent event. Because the transfer petition is filed in

the year 2020 itself. There is no such contention urged by

the review petitioner husband.

7. The 2nd ground that he met with an accident, so

it is difficult for him to travel is also not tenable as the said

accident took place on 7.12.2020 and FIR shows the

offence is under section 279, 337 of IPC and under section

187 of the M.V.Act, 1988. It appears that the injury

sustained by petitioner is also simple in nature. Now it is

more than one year the accident took place and it may not

cause any difficulty in attending the Court. Even otherwise

he is the bank manager. He has now joined duty at

Kalaburagi. Therefore no such ground would be tenable.

8. The third ground is the distance. It is more

convenient for the review petitioner to attend the Court at

Hosapete from Kalaburgi than to Court at Haveri as the

distance between Hosapete and Kalaburgi is practically half

of the distance between Kalaburgi to Haveri.

9. The 4th ground is that he has to visit his son

and parents at Haveri and it will cause strain to him is also

not tenable. When he can travel to Haveri, then Hosapete

is more near to Kalaburagi than Haveri.

10. The 5th ground is that the petitioner is ready to

bear the expenses of respondent wife to attend the Court

at Haveri. As evident from impugned order, the wife has

alleged that review petitioner husband is not paying even

maintenance to her. Further, as discussed, it is the wife's

convenient that has to be considered in view of the

principles stated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the

decision referred in the impugned order.

11. The provision of Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC states

when any person considering himself aggrieved by any

decree or order, or a decision of Court, can apply for

review 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 or order was made, or on

account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of

record or by any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a

review of the decree passed order made against him, may

apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed

the decree or made the order.

12. Therefore, the said review petition is

maintainable only under the circumstances narrated under

Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. There must be some mistake or

any error apparent on the face of the record or there must

be other sufficient reason. So only on these three grounds

the review petition can be filed. Therefore, the review

jurisdiction can be exercised only on the ground of error

apparent on the face of record and not on any health

ground. If there is any mistake apparent on the part of the

Court, the review is maintainable. If there are sufficient

reasons, then also the Court can review its order. But what

would be the sufficient reason will depend upon the facts

and circumstances of each case. It may be misconception

of facts or law by the advocate.

13. So keeping in view the principles regarding

requirement or entertaining the review petition if the

present petition is considered, then it is evident that there

is nothing to show that the order impugned suffers from

any error apparent on the face of the record or there are

any other justifiable reasons. On the other hand, it is

evident that both the parties are litigating since 2016.

There are cases pending between them in both the Courts.

It is stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that

the petition under section 482 of Cr.P.C. is also pending

before this Court. It is advisable in the interest of parties

to amicably settle the matter and/or request the Courts

where the petitions are pending for early disposal of the

matrimonial proceedings pending between the parties

looking into the year from which they are pending.

14. The scope of review petition is very limited. The

Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma vs.

Mayawati and others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320,

has laid down the principles for considering the grounds of

review which could be maintainable and the same is

quoted hereunder for ready reference:-

"20.1. 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" have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius 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 v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.

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, if 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."

15. The grounds now urged by the petitioner would

not be construed as error apparent on the face of the

record. It would certainly not come within the principles

laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in para 20.1 but

would fall under para 20.2 of the judgment referred to

supra. The matter which was heard and disposed of, after

critically analyzing the material on record could not be re-

heard since the review is not an appeal in disguise.

16. Therefore, viewed from any angle, the revision

petition does not survive for consideration and is not fit to

be admitted. Hence, I pass the following: