Karnataka High Court
Mysore Medical College And vs The State Of Karnataka on 29 February, 2024
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:8473-DB
RP No. 353 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. 353 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
MYSORE MEDICAL COLLEGE AND
RESEARCH INSTITUTE
IRWIN ROAD, MYSORE-57001.
REP. BY ITS DEAN AND DIRECTOR.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. CHANDRAKANTH R GOULAY - ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH
AND FAMILY WELFARE
Digitally REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
signed by VIDHANA SOUDHA
SUMATHY BANGALORE - 560 001.
KANNAN
Location: 2. THE DIRECTORATE OF MEDICAL EDUCATION
High Court of
Karnataka DEPARTMENT OF MEDICAL
AND FAMILY WELFARE
ANANDA RAO CIRCLE
BANGALORE 560 009.
3. SRI. MAHADEVA
S/O SRI. MADEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:8473-DB
RP No. 353 of 2023
'
4. PUTTASWAMY
S/O SRI. RANGADASAIAH
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. YOGESH D NAIK - AGA FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 & 2)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47
RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE
ORDER DATED 04/06/2013 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT
IN W.A.NO.387/2010 AND 388-397/2010 VIDE ANNEXURE-C IN
SO FAR AS RESPONDENTS NO. 3 AND 4 ARE CONCERNED TO
REHEAR THE MATTER ON MERITS.
THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR .J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
Learned counsel Sri Chandrakanth R.Goulay for the
petitioner is present before the Court physically.
2. Learned AGA is directed to take notice for
respondent Nos.1 and 2.
3. Office note reveals non-compliance of office
objections at Sl.Nos. 5 and 6 and also at Sl.Nos.8 and 9.
The counsel is required to cure the defects under the curial
law.
4. This review petition is filed by the petitioner under
Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 of the CPC seeking to
NC: 2024:KHC:8473-DB
recall the order dated 04.06.2013 passed by this Court in
W.A.No.387/2010, 388/2010 and W.A.397/2010.
However, in this petition, I.A.No.1/2023 is filed under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of
delay of 3680 days in filing the review petition. This
application is appended with an affidavit filed by
Dr.K.R.Dakshayani, W/o K.N.Prasanna. It consists of
paragraphs 1 to 10. Counsel for the petitioner refers to
paragraph 9 and 10 of the affidavit to state that the delay
caused is bonafide and unintentional.
5. However, it is relevant to refer the reliance of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State
Tax Officer (1) and Another reported in wherein it is
observed that
"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
NC: 2024:KHC:8473-DB
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."
6. Keeping in view the reliance of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court stated supra, we are of the considered
opinion that the reasons assigned in the affidavit
appended to the application seeking condonation of delay
does not have any substance and there are no justifiable
and also sound reasons to condone the delay in filing the
review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
Accordingly, I.A.1/2023 is dismissed. Consequently, this
review petition also stands dismissed being devoid of
merits.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
DKB
