Karnataka High Court
M/S Binary Semantics Limited vs M/S Sonata Software Limited on 19 September, 2022
Bench: K.S.Mudagal, S Rachaiah
R.P.No.219/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
REVIEW PETITION No.219/2017
IN
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.885/2010
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL CROB NO.24/2012
BETWEEN:
1. M/S.BINARY SEMANTICS LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE
PLOT NO.38, SECTOR 18
GURGAON- 122 015
REP. BY ITS COMMERCIAL MANAGER
AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI B.S.JAYARAM
2. M/S.BINARY SEMANTICS LTD.
20, 2ND FLOOR, ARIHANTH COMPLEX
1ST CROSS, CKC GARDEN
(OFF.MISSION ROAD)
BANGALORE- 560 027
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI B.S.JAYARAM ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ASHOK.G.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S.SONATA SOFTWARE LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE
1ST FLOOR, APS TRUST BUILDING
BULL TEMPLE ROAD
N.R.COLONY
R.P.No.219/2017
2
BANGALORE- 560 019
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
AND MANAGING DIRECTOR ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW
THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.02.2017 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN
RFA NO.885/2010 CONNECTED WITH RFA CROB.NO.24/2012.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
"Whether the judgment of this Court in
RFA No.885/2010 connected with RFA Crob.No.24/2012
requires to be reviewed"? is the question involved in this
case.
2. The review petitioners filed the said appeal
challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial
Court for recovery of Rs.18,55,281.30. This Court on
considering the entire materials on record and on hearing
the parties partly allowed the appeal and modified the
decree for recovery of Rs.8,63,000/-. Similarly allowed
cross-objection in part awarding interest at 9% per annum
from the date of the suit.
R.P.No.219/2017
3. The review petitioners are seeking review of
the judgment on the ground that there is error apparent
on the face of the record. According to the petitioners the
apparent error is not giving deduction to the payment
allegedly made by the appellant under Exs.D15 and D16
(1,00,000 + 2,60,000= 3,60,000).
4. What is the scope of the review and what is
the error apparent on face of the record was considered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs
V.Narayana Reddy1. In para 19 of the said judgment, the
Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the judgment in
Kamalesh Verma V. Mayawati and Others [(2013) 8 SCC
320] laid down the principles for exercising review
jurisdiction which were summarized as follows:
"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" has
been interpreted in Chajju Ram vs. Neki, and approved
by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs.
Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors. to mean "a
reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to
2022 SCC Online SC 1034
R.P.No.219/2017
those specified in the rule". The same principles have
been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese
& Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors.
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 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."
(Emphasis supplied)
5. Reading of the above judgment shows that the
review petition is not maintainable for repetition of old
arguments or cannot equate with the original hearing of
the case. It further shows that error apparent on the face
of the record does not mean the error which has to be
fished out and searched.
R.P.No.219/2017
6. The petitioner claims that this Court did not
deduct a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- paid under Exs.D15 and
D16 and the trial Court had given deduction to the same.
He further submits that this Court in para 21 of the
judgment this Court erroneously held that the trial Court
had rejected those documents.
7. Perusal of para 21 of the judgment does not
indicate that this Court held that the trial Court rejected
those documents. What is observed is that genuineness of
Exs.D27 to D32 was disputed, considering the
interpolations and defence not making any claim towards
the outstanding amount, referring to Exs.D2 to D13 and
Exs.D27 to D32 the trial Court has rejected such claim.
8. Attempt was made by both side to draw
attention of this Court to Ex.D14, Ex.D14(a) and
Ex.D14(b). Again to meet those documents, attempt was
made to take this Court through Exs.D15 and D16,
judgment of the trial Court and the oral evidence. The very
fact of reading those documents and oral evidence once
again excludes the matter from the purview of review.
That amounts to searching enquiry, re-appreciating
R.P.No.219/2017
the evidence and rewriting of the judgment. That is not
the scope of review. Therefore the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
KSR
