[Cites 1, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. Gopal. G. Pawar vs The Assistant Executive Engineer on 16 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53454
RP No. 621 of 2024
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M
REVIEW PETITION NO. 621 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
SRI. GOPAL G. PAWAR
S/O LATE N.GOVINDAPPA AND
LATE SMT GODAVARI BAI,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
PRESENTLY AT NEW ADDRESS
R/O VRUSHABHADRI NILAYA,
4TH MAIN, 3RD CROSS,
HIGH SCHOOL EXTENSION,
HARIHARA-577 601
DAVANAGERE- DISTRICT.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. R.GOPAL, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed
by THEJAS THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
KUMAR N (ELECTRICAL) BRUHAT KAMAGARI,
Location: HIGH UPA VIBHAGA-2, KPTCL, R.H. BUILDING,
COURT OF 2ND FLOOR, POONA - BENGALURU ROAD,
KARNATAKA
DAVANAGERE-577002.
...RESPONDENT
THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47, RULE 1 READ
WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53454
RP No. 621 of 2024
HC-KAR
ORAL ORDER
Sri.R.Gopal, for the review petitioner, appeared in person.
The review petition is filed seeking a review of the order
passed by this Court on 27.11.2024 in W.P.No.25736/2024.
2. Counsel for the petitioner urged several
contentions.
3. Sri.R.Gopal, in presenting his arguments,
strenuously urged that the reduction of compensation in
respect of coconut trees and the award of interest of 6% is an
error apparent on the face of the record. Counsel, hence,
submits that the order may be reviewed.
4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with
care.
5. The only point for consideration in this petition is
whether the review petitioner has made out a case for
reviewing the order dated 27th day of November 2024 and
satisfies the criteria of entertaining the same in the review
jurisdiction.
NC: 2025:KHC:53454
HC-KAR
6. Order 47 Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure
provides for an application for review, which reads as under:
1. Application for review of the judgment.- (1) Any
person considering himself aggrieved,-
(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 of 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.
NC: 2025:KHC:53454
HC-KAR
7. The Apex court has repeatedly held in various
judgments that the jurisdiction and scope of the review are not
that of an appeal and can be entertained only if there is an
apparent error on the face of the record. A mere repetition of
old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually
covered grounds, or minor mistakes of an inconsequential
import are insufficient.
As is well known, a party is not entitled to seek a review
of a judgment delivered by the Court merely for rehearing and
a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a
judgment pronounced by the Court is final. Under Order 47
Rule 1 of CPC, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if a
mistake or an error is apparent on the face of the record. An
error that is not self-evident and must be detected through 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. Suffice it to note
that in the exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it
is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be 'reheard and
corrected'. A review petition must be remembered as having a
NC: 2025:KHC:53454
HC-KAR
limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an 'appeal in
disguise'.
8. Turning to the facts of the case, the review
petitioner has a grievance about the compensation awarded in
respect of coconut trees and the award of 6% interest. This
Court disposed of the writ petition on merits. The grounds
raised in the review petition do not fall within the limited scope
and ambit of the review jurisdiction. The grounds raised in the
review petition seek a re-hearing of the case on merits, which
is not permissible in review jurisdiction. The review petition
amounts to an appeal in disguise. I find there is no material
within the parameters of review jurisdiction to review the order.
9. Resultantly, the review petition is rejected.
SD/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17
