Karnataka High Court
Sri. C.S. Ramanath vs State Of Karnataka on 28 January, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:3842
RP No. 623 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
REVIEW PETITION NO. 623 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
1. SRI. C.S. RAMANATH
S/O LATE SHRI C S RAMA SASTRY,
AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS,
R/AT NO.109, 2ND MAIN,
SHESHADRIPURAM,
BENGALURU-560020
2. SRI. G.B. UMESH
S/O LATE SHRI G C BASAVARAJU,
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS,
276, BSAVAKRUPA,
11TH CROSS, TELECOM LAYOUT,
K P AGRAHARA, BENGALURU-560023
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SHIVAPRASAD SHANTANAGOUDAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by
MAHALAKSHMI B M 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Location: HIGH REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY/
COURT OF MINISTER OF CO-OPERATION,
KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560001
2. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES
IN KARNATAKA, HAVING OFFICE AT
ALI ASKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU-560052
3. STATE BANK OF MYSORE EMPLOYEES CO-OPERATIVE
CREDIT SOCIETY LTD.,
REPRESENTED BY
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:3842
RP No. 623 of 2022
OFFICE AT 644/645, 1ST FLOOR,
SBM BANGALORE BRANCH PREMISES,
AVENUE ROAD, BENGALURU-560009
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SIDHARTH BABU RAO, AGA FOR R1 AND R2;
SRI. G. CHANDRASHEKHARAIAH, ADVOCATE FOR R3)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER SECTION 114
READ WITH ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR
ENTIRE RECORDS IN WRIT PETITION NOS. 2985-2986/2014 AND TO
REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 19.09.2014 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION
NOS. 2985-2986/2014 (ANNEXURE-A) AND RESTORE THE WRIT
PETITION NOS. 2985-2986/2014 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND
EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER
WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
This review petition is directed against the impugned
order dated 19.09.2014 passed in WP Nos.2985-2986/2014,
whereby the said petitions filed by the petitioners was
dismissed by this Court.
2. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioners
and perused the material on record.
NC: 2025:KHC:3842
3. Perusal of the impugned order cannot be said to
suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record nor
any illegality or infirmity warranting interference by this
Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 114 r/w
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC as held in various judgments of the
Apex Court and this Court including (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 - Civil
Appeal Nos.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and the
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.
NC: 2025:KHC:3842
(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 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."
3. Upon consideration of the entire material on
record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the
impugned order nor does it suffer from any error apparent on
NC: 2025:KHC:3842
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.
4. In view of the foregoing reasons, the review
petition is hereby dismissed. Consequently, I.A.No.2/2023
is dismissed.
Sd/-
_______________________
JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
MBM
