Karnataka High Court
N. Ashok vs The Branch Manager on 29 February, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8472-DB
RP No. 456 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
REVIEW PETITION NO. 456 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
N. ASHOK
AGED 49 YEARS
S/O NARASHIMAPPA
R/AT KAYDIGUNTE VILLAGE
PRASHARAMPURA HOBLI
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT -577 538.
...PETITIONER
Digitally signed (BY SRI. D S HOSMATH - ADVOCATE)
by SUMATHY
KANNAN AND:
Location: High
Court of 1. THE BRANCH MANAGER
Karnataka PRAGATHI GRAMANA BANK
KAYDIGUNTE VILLAGE
PARASHURAMAPURA HOBLI
CHALLAKERE TALUK
CHITRADURGA DISTRICT -577 538.
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER
PRAGATHI GRAMINA BANK
HEAD OFFICE, SANAGANAKAL ROAD
GANDHINAGAR, BELLARI
BELLARY DISTRICT.
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8472-DB
RP No. 456 of 2023
3. THE CHAIRMAN
PRAGATHI GRAMINA BANK
HEAD OFFICE, SANAGANAKAL ROAD
GANDHINAGAR, BELLARI
BELLARY DISTRICT.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1(A) R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW
THE ORDER DATED 25/10/2013 PASSED IN WRIT APPEAL NO.
3478/2012 (S-RES).
THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR .J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel Sri D.S.Hosmath for the petitioner is
on record but there is no representation either through
video conferencing or present before the court physically.
2. This review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule
1(a) r/w Section 114 of CPC seeking to review the order
passed by this Court in W.A.No.3478/2012 (S-RES) dated
25.10.2013.
3. However, office note reveals non-compliance of
objections even for the fourth time. Neither the counsel
for the petitioner nor the petitioner is either diligent or
NC: 2024:KHC:8472-DB
vigilant to cure the defects under curial law. One of the
defects noted by the Office is non-filing of necessary
application seeking condonation of delay of 3588 days in
filing the review petition.
4. In this regard, it is relevant to refer the reliance of
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar
Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer (1) reported in 2023 SCC
Online SC 1406 wherein it is observed as under:
11. In Parsion Devi v. Sumitri Devi, this Court made
very pivotal observations.
9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be
open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error
apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not
self-evident and has to be detected by a process of
reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on
the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its
power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of
the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not
permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and
corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has
a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal
in disguise."
NC: 2024:KHC:8472-DB
5. It is also relevant to refer Section 151 of CPC
which indicates no limit for exercising inherent powers
either effecting or affecting to make such orders as may
be necessary; it is the first limb of the said provision. The
second limb of the said provision indicates preventing
abuse of process of the Court and the third limb indicates
securing ends of justice, which is applicable to both the
parties to the lis. Keeping in view the reliance of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court stated supra and so also, Section
151 of CPC, we find no substance to persuade this review
petition. Accordingly, this review petition stands dismissed
being devoid of merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
DKB
