Karnataka High Court
Sri Annayappa vs Late Munivenkatappa on 13 February, 2025
Author: K.Somashekar
Bench: K.Somashekar
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:6567-DB
RP No. 470 of 2016
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
REVIEW PETITION NO. 470 OF 2016
BETWEEN:
SRI ANNAYAPPA
S/O LATE AYYAPPA
AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS
OCCUPN: AGRICUTLURE
R/AT ANNAYAPPA GARDEN
JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. D GANGADHARA - ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
MOUNESHWARAPPA LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
NAGARATHNA
Location: HIGH S/O LATE AYYAPPA
COURT OF
KARNATAKA (DIED DURING THE PEDENCY OF
THE WRIT APPEAL NO. 3965/2009
LRS ALREADY BROUGHT ON RECORD
IN THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL)
1. SMT. TULASAMMA
W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS
2. SMT. VAJRAMMA
W/O SRINIVAS
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
3. SMT. GOWRAMMA
W/O GANESH
AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:6567-DB
RP No. 470 of 2016
4. SRI YELLAPPA
S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
5. SMT. MUNIRATHNA M
W/O VENU
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ARE
R/AT NO. 188, 1ST BLOCK
1ST MAIN ROAD, SARJAPURA ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 074.
6. SMT. MANJULA M
W/O NAGARAJ
AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS
7. SMT. PADMA M
W/O MUNILAKSHMAPPA
AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS
RESPONDENTS 6 & 7 ARE
R/AT NO. 283, HEBAGODI
MUNESHWARANGAR
BANGALORE - 560 100.
8. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER
BANGALORE DISTRICT
TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND
K.G.ROAD
BANGALORE - 560 009.
9. SRI BASAVANNA DEVARU DEITY
REPRESENTED BY THE THASILDAR/
MUZRAI OFFICER
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009.
10. THE GOPALASWAMY DEITY
REP. BY SRI RANGACHARI (INAMDAR)
SRI. RANGACHARI (INAMDAR)
S/O SRINIVASACHAR
AGED MAJOR
R/AT AGARA VILLAGE
BEGUR HOBLI
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:6567-DB
RP No. 470 of 2016
BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK
BANGALORE.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VIJETHA R NAIK - ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS
NO.1 TO 7; SRI. B RAVINDRANATH - AGA FOR RESPONDENTS
NO.8 TO 10 (VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 13.02.2025,
ACCEPTS NOTICE IN RESPECT OF RESPONDENTS NO.9 & 10))
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYNG TO REVIEW AND SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 09.07.2023 PASED BY THIS COURT IN
W.A.NO.3965/2009(LR).
THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR)
This review petition is initiated by the petitioner seeking
to review the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court
in W.A.No.3965/2009 (LR) dated 09.07.2023 and also to set-
aside the said order.
NC: 2025:KHC:6567-DB
2. Learned counsel Sri Nandeesh for the petitioner is
present before the Court physically and represents Sri
D.Gangadhar who is on record.
3. Learned counsel Sri Vijetha R.Naik for respondent
Nos.1 to 7 is present before the Court physically inclusive of
learned AGA for respondent Nos. 8 to 10.
4. Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7 has facilitated the
order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Curative Pet(C)
No.272/2016 in R.P.(C) No.175/2016 in SLP (C)
No.34862/2013 dated 26.07.2016 wherein it is observed that
"we have gone through the Curative Petition and the relevant
documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the
parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa
Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and another, reported in 2002 (4)
SCC 388. Hence, the Curative Petition is dismissed."
5. However, keeping in view the submission made by the
counsel for the parties and also keeping in view Order 47 Rule
1 of CPC, it is relevant to refer the reliance of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL vs.
NC: 2025:KHC:6567-DB
STATE TAX OFFICER ((2023) SCC ONLINE 1406) wherein it is
held as under:
10. It is also well settled that a party is not
entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this
Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh
decision of the case. The normal principle is that 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.
"11. In PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS VS. SUMITRI
DEVI AND OTHERS ((1997) 8 SCC 715)), 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 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."
NC: 2025:KHC:6567-DB
6. Keeping in view the aforesaid reliance of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court, this review petition does not survive for
consideration. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
(K.SOMASHEKAR)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VENKATESH NAIK T)
JUDGE
DKB
