Karnataka High Court
Sri D M Suresh vs Smt S T Nagaveni on 4 January, 2024
Author: S.R.Krishna Kumar
Bench: S.R.Krishna Kumar
-1-
NC: 2024:KHC:412
RP No. 418 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
REVIEW PETITION NO. 418 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI D M SURESH
S/O LATE D MALLEGOWDA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
KELLUR VILLAGE, HALASE POST
KASABA HOBLI, MUDIGERE TALUK
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT-577132
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAJARAMA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SMT S T NAGAVENI
W/O LATE D M NARAYANA
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS
R/O SAKALESHPUR TOWN
PUMP HOUSE ROAD
LAKSHMIPURAM EXTENSION
SAKALESHPUR-573134.
Digitally 2. SRI D N AMRUTH
signed by ALSO KNOWN AS AMRUTHESH
VANDANA S
Location:
S/O LATE D M NARAYANA
HIGH AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
COURT OF R/O SAKALESHPUR TOWN
KARNATAKA PUMP HOUSE ROAD
LAKSHMIPURAM EXTENSION
SAKALESHPUR-573134.
3. DR D N SHAMBHAVI
W/O SRI VENUGOPAL
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
SURAKSHA DENTAL CLINIC
MAIN POST OFFICE ROAD
CHIKMAGALURU-577101.
4. SMT D N SOUMYA
W/O H K JAGADISH
-2-
NC: 2024:KHC:412
RP No. 418 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
'KRISHNA NILAYA'
KUVEMPU ROAD, NEAR CHRIST SCHOOL
VIDYANAGAR, CHIKMAGALURU-573201.
...RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ
WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER BY
ALLOWING THE PRESENT REVIEW PETITION SEEKING REVIEW OF THE
ORDER DATED:04/07/2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WRIT
PETITION No.12202/2023 (GM-CPC), ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, THE
COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This review petition is directed against the impugned order
dated 04.07.2023 passed in W.P.No.12202/2023, whereby the said
petition preferred by the respondents was allowed by this Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and
perused the material on record.
3. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions
made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused
the material on record including the impugned order in the light of
the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod
Kumar Rawat - Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020, (ii)
S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan - (2023) SCC Online
SC 185 (iii) S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy -
NC: 2024:KHC:412
Civil Appeal Nos.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and the recent
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (iv) Sanjay Kumar
Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer -2023 SCC Online SC 1406,
wherein it is held as under:-
16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:--
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a
mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and
departure from that principle is justified only when
circumstances of a substantial and compelling character
make it necessary to do so.
(iii) 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 record justifying the
court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule
1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be
"reheard and corrected."
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and
cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise."
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be
permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which
have already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an
error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it
NC: 2024:KHC:412
should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on
the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent
decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself
cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
4. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, I do
not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and
decree nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the
record warranting interference by this Court under Section 114 r/w
Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, as held in the aforesaid judgments of the
Apex Court.
5. In view of the foregoing reasons, the review petition is
devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
HNM/SRL
