Karnataka High Court

Devarajegowda Alis Lokesh vs C M Ramesh on 4 August, 2025

                                              -1-
                                                        NC: 2025:KHC:30104
                                                        RP No. 589 of 2024


                   HC-KAR




                       IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

                            DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025

                                            BEFORE
                            THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
                               REVIEW PETITION NO. 589 OF 2024


                  BETWEEN:

                  DEVARAJEGOWDA ALIAS LOKESH
                  S/O LATE MUTHEGOWDA
                  AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
                  R/AT CHIGALLI VILLAGE
                  SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI-573220
                  HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
                                                             ...PETITIONER
                  (BY SRI. KARUMBAIAH T.A., ADVOCATE)

                  AND:

                  1.    C.M.RAMESH
                        S/O. LATE MUTHEGOWDA
                        AGED 63 YEARS
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M         R/AT CHIGALLI VILLAGE
Location: HIGH COURT    SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI- 573220
OF KARNATAKA            HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

                        NOW AT "SREE SHARATH GOWDA NIVASA
                        VISHWESHWARAIAH BADAVANE
                        2ND STAGE, DASARAKOPPALU,
                        BEHIND MARUTHI SUZUKI GODOWN
                        HASSAN - 573202.

                  2.    SAROJA
                        W/O SUNDARESH
                        AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS
                        MARENAHALLI VILLAGE
                           -2-
                                   NC: 2025:KHC:30104
                                   RP No. 589 of 2024


HC-KAR




     SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI - 573220
     HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

3.   KANTHA
     S/O RENUKA @ REVANNI
     AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS
     HITHALA ALADAHALLI
     SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI - 573220
     HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

4.   VARAMAHALAKSHMI
     D/O RENUKA @ REVANNI
     W/O KUMARA
     AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS
     HITHALA ALADAHALLI
     SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI-573220
     HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

5.   NANJAMMA
     W/O EREGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS
     KONTHAGODANAHALLI
     SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI -573 220
     HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT

6.   KUMARA
     S/O NINGEGOWDA
     AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
     HITHALA ALADAHALLI
     SHANTHIGRAMA HOBLI- 573220
     HASSAN TALUK AND DISTRICT
                                      ...RESPONDENTS

     THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED U/O 47 RULE 1 R/W
SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO DIRECT THE REGISTRY TO
PUT UP THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN RSA NO. 2127/2016
ALONGWITH THIS PETITION AND REVIEW THE JUDGMENT
DATED 05.09.2024 PASSED IN RSA NO. 2127/2016, IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
                                  -3-
                                              NC: 2025:KHC:30104
                                              RP No. 589 of 2024


HC-KAR




     THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM:         HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

                           ORAL ORDER

The review petitioner seeks to review the order dated

05.09.2024 passed by this Court in RSA No. 2127/2016,

whereby the appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

2. Heard Sri. T.A.Karumbaiah, learned counsel for

the petitioner and perused the material on record including

the order under review.

3. 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--

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no

NC: 2025:KHC:30104

HC-KAR

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

NC: 2025:KHC:30104

HC-KAR

appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate 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.]

4. 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

NC: 2025:KHC:30104

HC-KAR

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 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

NC: 2025:KHC:30104

HC-KAR

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."

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

NC: 2025:KHC:30104

HC-KAR

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 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."

5. On plain reading of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and

in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case

NC: 2025:KHC:30104

HC-KAR

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 an 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.

6. Looking into the judgment of this Court, there is