[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Smt.Kashibai Kolur vs The Managing Director on 16 December, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:53453
RP No. 481 of 2025
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. 481 OF 2025
BETWEEN:
1. SMT.KASHIBAI KOLUR
D/O MALLANAGOUDA,
AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS,
OCC: MECHANIC (ELC), KSRTC,
CHITRADURGA DEPO,
CHITRADURGA-577501.
2. SRI. GOLLALAPPA KUMBAR
S/O NAGAPPA
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS,
OCC: MECHANIC (ELC), KSRTC,
CHITRADURGA DEPO,
CHITRADURGA-577501.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. JAVEED S., ADVOCATE)
Digitally signed
by THEJAS
KUMAR N AND:
Location: HIGH
COURT OF 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR,
KARNATAKA KARNATAKA STATE ROAD
TRANSPORT CORPORATION,
POST BAG-2778,
KH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BENGALURU-560027.
2. THE DIVISION CONTROLLER,
APPOINTING AUTHORITY,
KSRTC CHITRADURGA DIVISION,
CHITRADURGA-577 501.
...RESPONDENTS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:53453
RP No. 481 of 2025
HC-KAR
THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47, RULE 1 OF
THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION,
THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:
ORAL ORDER
Sri.Javed S., counsel for the review petitioners, appeared
in person.
2. The review petition is filed seeking review of the
order dated 08.10.2025, passed in writ petition
No.10251/2025.
3. Counsel for the review petitioners has urged several
contentions.
4. Heard and perused the papers with care.
5. The only point for consideration in this petition is
whether the review petitioners has made out a case for
reviewing the order dated 8th of October, 2025 and satisfies the
criteria of entertaining the same in the review jurisdiction.
NC: 2025:KHC:53453
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:53453
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.
8. 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 of CPC.
Suffice it to note that in the exercise of jurisdiction under Order
47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision
NC: 2025:KHC:53453
HC-KAR
to be 'reheard and corrected'. A review petition must be
remembered as having a limited purpose and cannot be
allowed to be an 'appeal in disguise'.
9. Turning to the facts of the case, the review
petitioners contend that they are trainees and not Corporation
servants. They have urged a ground that they have no relief
under the Industrial Disputes Act. They have a grievance about
the final order passed by this Court. 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.
10. Resultantly, the review petition is rejected.
SD/-
(JYOTI M)
JUDGE
SS
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19
