Karnataka High Court
The Divisional Controller Karnataka ... vs Sri V R Muninarasimhaiah on 6 August, 2024
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:31089
RP No. 562 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
REVIEW PETITION NO. 562 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER,
KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT
CORPORATION, CHIKKABALLAPUR DIVISION,
CHIKKABALLAPUR,
HEREIN REP. BY THE CHIEF LAW OFFICER,
K.S.R.T.C.,
CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H ROAD,
SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI B.L SANJEEV, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI V R MUNINARASIMHAIAH,
S/O V RAJANNA,
Digitally signed by AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
MAHALAKSHMI B M
C/O KSRTC AND BMTC,
Location: HIGH
COURT OF UNITED EMPLOYEES UNION,
KARNATAKA NO.23, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
MATHIKERE EXTENSION,
BANGALORE-560 054.
...RESPONDENT
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1
R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER
DATED 06/06/2023 PASSED IN WP NO. 8872/2018 (VIDE
ANNEXURE-A), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:31089
RP No. 562 of 2023
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
Though the matter is listed for orders, with the
consent of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is taken up
for final disposal.
2. The review petitioner seeks to challenge the
impugned order dated 06.06.2023 passed by this Court in
W.P.No.8872/2018, whereby the petition filed by the
petitioner was dismissed.
3. Heard Sri.B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for the
petitioner and perused the material on record including the
impugned order.
4. The present review petition is filed under Order
XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC. Order XLVII Rule
1 CPC contemplates as under:
"1. Application for review of judgment.--
(1) Any person considering himself
aggrieved--
NC: 2024:KHC:31089
(a) by a decree or order from which an
appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal
has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no
appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a
Court of Small Causes,
and who, 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 was passed
or order made, or on account of some
mistake or error apparent on the face of the
record or for any other sufficient reason,
desires to obtain a review of the decree
passed or order made against him, may
apply for a review of judgment to the Court
which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a
decree or order may apply for a review of
judgment notwithstanding the pendency of
an appeal by some other party except where
the ground of such appeal is common to the
applicant and the appellant, or when, being
respondent, he can present to the Appellate
NC: 2024:KHC:31089
Court the case on which he applies for the
review.
1[Explanation.--The fact that the decision on
a question of law on which the judgment of
the Court is based has been reversed or
modified by the subsequent decision of a
superior Court in any other case, shall not be
a ground for the review of such judgment.]"
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja
V/s Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR
1995 SC 455 at para 8, held as under:
"8. It is well settled that the review
proceedings are not by way of an appeal and
have to be strictly confined to the scope and
ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. In
connection with the limitation of the powers
of the Court under Order 47, Rule 1, while
dealing with similar jurisdiction available to
the High Court while seeking to review the
orders under Article 226 of the Constitution
of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam
Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma,
AIR 1979 SC 1047, speaking through
Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following
NC: 2024:KHC:31089
pertinent observations: (para 3):
"It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of
the Constitution to preclude the High Court
from exercising the power of review which
inheres in every Court of Plenary jurisdiction
to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct
grave and palpable errors committed by it.
But, there are definitive limits to the exercise
of the power of review. The power of review
may be exercised on the discovery of new
and important matter or evidence which,
after the exercise of due diligence was not
within the knowledge of the person seeking
the review or could not be produced by him
at the time when the order was made; it may
be exercised where some mistake or error
apparent on the face of the record is found;
it may also be exercised on any analogous
ground. But, it may not be exercised on the
ground that the decision was erroneous on
merits. That would be the province of a Court
of Appeal. A power of review is not to be
confused with appellate power which may
enable an Appellate Court to correct all
manner of errors committed by the
subordinate court."
NC: 2024:KHC:31089
Now it is also to be kept in view that in the
impugned judgment, the Division Bench of
the High Court has clearly observed that they
were entertaining the review petition only on
the ground of error apparent on the face of
the record and not on any other ground. So
far as that aspect is concerned, it has to be
kept in view that an error apparent on the
face of record must be such an error which
must strike one on mere looking at the
record and would not require any long-drawn
process of reasoning on points where there
may conceivably be two opinions. We may
usefully refer to the observations of this
Court in the case of Satyanarayan
Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun
Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137,
wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the
Court has made the following observations in
connection with an error apparent on the
face of the record:
"An error which has to be established by a
long drawn process of reasoning on points
where there may conceivably be two opinions
can hardly be said to be an error apparent on
the face of the record. Where an alleged
error is far from self-evident and if it can be
NC: 2024:KHC:31089
established, it has to be established, by
lengthy and complicated arguments, such an
error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari
according to the rule governing the powers of
the superior court to issue such a writ."
6. On plain reading of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and
in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case
of Meera Bhanja supra, the power to review is available
only when there is an error apparent on the face of the
record and not then erroneous decision. The power of
review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC may be opened inter
alia only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the
face of the record and a review application cannot be held
to be an appeal in disguise.
7. Looking into the judgment of this Court, there is
no error apparent on the face of the record.
8. In the light of this settled proposition, this Court
is of the considered opinion that the review petition is not
within the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
NC: 2024:KHC:31089
Accordingly, the review petition deserves to be dismissed
as devoid of merits.
9. In the result, I pass the following:
ORDER
i) The review petition is dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the review petition,
I.As.1 and 2 of 2023 do not survive for consideration.
Sd/-
(K.S. HEMALEKHA)
JUDGE
NR/-
