Karnataka High Court
Late K V Kannan vs Shri R S Srinivasan on 14 November, 2025
-1-
RP No. 105 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
REVIEW PETITION NO. 105 OF 2025
IN RFA.No.1815/2017 (DEC)
BETWEEN:
LATE K.V. KANNAN,
SINCE DECEASED BY LRS.
1. MRS. JAMBU KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 90 YEARS
W/O LATE K.V. KANNAN.
2. MR.DASHARATHI K.V.,
S/O LATE K.V. KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS,
R/AT APARTMENT NO.A1-513,
SOBHA DEWFLOWER,
SARAKKI MAIN ROAD,
J.P. NAGAR, 1ST PHASE,
BANGALORE- 560 078.
EARLIER R/AT :
"VEDANTA"
NO.601.15TH CROSS,
J.P. NAGAR, 1ST PHASE,
BANGALORE.
3. MRS. SHEELA,
W/O LATE SRIPATHI K.V.,
S/O LATE K.V. KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS.
4. MRS. SHRUTHI RANJANI,
D/O LATE SRIPATHI K.V.,
S/O LATE K.V. KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS.
-2-
RP No. 105 of 2025
5. MS. SRINIDHI,
D/O LATE SRIPATHI,
S/O LATE K.V. KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS.
6. MR. SUDHARSHAN K.V.,
S/O LATE K.V. SRIPATHI,
S/O LATE K.V.KANNAN,
AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS
PETITIONER NOS.1 AND 2 TO 6 ARE
R/AT FLAT NO.104,
SRI. SAILAM APARTMENT,
NO.59, 4TH MAIN ROAD,
GAVIPURAM EXTENSION,
BANGALORE- 560 019.
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. SURAJ S., ADVOCATE )
AND:
SHRI.R.S.SRINIVASAN,
S/O LATE R.S. SEETHARMAIAH SETTY,
AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS,
PARTNER, M/S.ASHOKA INDUSTRIES,
SY.NO.18/3, KALENA AGRAHARA,
BEGUR HOBLI, BANNERGHATTA ROAD,
BANGALORE- 560 076.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. PRATIK PANY, ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114
READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO
PERUSE AND REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 20.12.2024
PASSED IN THE RFA BEARING NO.1815/2017(DEC) AND
ALLOW THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY,
ALLOW THE SAID REGULAR FIRST APPEAL AS PRAYED FOR BY
THE PETITIONER THEREIN.
-3-
RP No. 105 of 2025
THIS REVIEW PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND
RESERVED FOR JUDGMENT ON 17.10.2025, COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT PRONOUNCED THE
FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA)
This review petition is filed by appellants in
RFA.No.1815/ 2017, on the file of Co-ordinate Bench of
this Court under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114
of CPC, to review the judgment and decree passed in
RFA.No.1815/2017, dated 20th December 2024.
2. We have heard the arguments of learned counsel
for the review petitioners and the respondent.
3. The main contentions of the review petitioners are
that, flow of title chart shown in the judgment at page
No.18 is incorrect; Plaintiff is claiming right, title and
interest in respect of Survey No.19/1, measuring 1 acre
38 guntas, but the extent mentioned in the title chart is
incorrect and location of the property is also incorrect;
On the basis of the said incorrect table, this Court passed
the judgment; Therefore, there is a mistake apparent on
the face of the record, which requires to be reviewed.
4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner further
contended that Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has relied
much on the documents produced by the defendant and
much importance was not given to the documents
produced by the plaintiff and they were not properly
appreciated; The trial Court had not given an opportunity
to the appellants to cross-examine DW-1; The defendant
took about 14 adjournments to lead examination-in-chief
of DW-1 and produced about 500 documents, which were
marked. Plaintiff wanted to go through the said
documents to prepare for cross-examination, but the trial
Court did not give sufficient opportunity to cross-examine
DW-1; The trial Court rejected the prayer and taken that
the plaintiff had not cross-examined DW-1; Thereafter, the
plaintiff filed an application to recall the said order, but the
trial Court rejected the said application and did not give an
opportunity to cross-examine DW-1, as such, it was a
denial of natural justice to the plaintiff. This fact was
brought to the notice of the Court and this Court, without
considering the same, looked into the documents produced
by the defendant. It is also a mistake apparent on the face
of the record.
5. Learned counsel for the review petitioner further
contended that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, while
deciding RFA.No.1815/2017, has not considered the
materials placed on record by both the parties properly
and decided the case. Therefore, it is also a mistake
apparent on the face of the record, which requires review
of the said judgment and decree passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. Hence, prayed to allow
the review petition.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent would
submit that, this Court while passing the judgment in
RFA.No.1815/2017, had taken into consideration all the
facts and on re-appreciating the materials, passed the
impugned judgment. The submission of the learned
counsel for petitioner that there are mistakes in the title
chart, is not sustainable. In para No.22, it is specifically
mentioned that, "the respondent in the written statement
filed on 23.10.2007 and additional written statement filed
on 23.01.2012 and 18.12.2014, contended that the flow of
title of both the property belonging to the plaintiff, as well
as the defendant, which is narrated in the following table
along with its relevant boundaries". The said chart was
not prepared by the Court; The flow of title chart was
prepared on the basis of the documents produced by both
the sides. During the trial, it was not denied or disputed;
Hence, there is no mistake in the said chart; The title
flowchart was not in dispute; The real dispute between the
parties was in respect of extent and location of the land
held by the plaintiff; The findings were not based on the
flow of the title chart, but on the appreciation of both oral
and documentary evidence produced by both parties to
the suit; Hence, there is no mistake apparent on the face
of the records.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent further
contended that the documents were exhibited and marked
before the Court, and copies of the same were made
available to the plaintiff prior to cross-examination; The
plaintiff was also given an opportunity to cross-examine
the relevant witnesses; Most of the documents were
revenue records/public documents; It is not the case that
the defendant did not offer the witness for
cross-examination; on the contrary, when the defendant's
witness was present, the plaintiff did not cross-examine
him; Therefore, the Court cannot reject the documents
produced and marked by the defendant, solely on the
ground that the defendant's witness was not
cross-examined by the plaintiff or that the plaintiff was not
granted an adjournment for cross-examination; This
Court, based on the materials available on record, has
passed the judgment with detailed reasons; Consequently,
there are no error apparent on the face of the record
warranting review of the judgment passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench in RFA No.1815/2017. Hence, the
review petition deserves to be dismissed with costs.
8. Undisputedly, the scope of review is very limited
to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and
does not extend to a re-hearing of the appeal on merits or
a fresh determination of the case.
9. In order to appreciate the scope of the review
petition and for the benefit of both the parties, reference
may be made to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal -vs- State Tax
Officer1, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court referred to the
judgment of Constitution Bench in the case of Beghar
Foundation -vs- K.S.Puttaswamy; The gist of the judgment
of Constitution Bench in the afore cited judgment are
stated at Para-16, which are as below :
(2024) 2 SCC 362
" 16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia
if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face
of the record.
16.2. 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.
16.3. 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.
16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under
Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an
erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected".
16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose
and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise".
16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner
cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the
questions which have already been addressed and
decided.
16.7. 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
- 10 -
long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where
there may conceivably be two opinions.
16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent
decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by
itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review."
10. In the present case, the repeated submission of
learned counsel for review petitioner is that the flow of
title chart mentioned in the judgment is incorrect,
therefore, the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench
on the basis of the said flow of chart, is incorrect.
As rightly stated by the learned counsel for the
respondent, the said flow of chart was not prepared by the
Court and reasons do not support the said contentions of
the petitioner. The said statement shows the date of
acquisition of property, mode of transfer, its date and
boundaries mentioned in the documents. It was prepared
by the defendant in his written statement and the same
was reproduced in the impugned judgment. However, the
real dispute between the parties in the suit is with respect
to extent of the property held by the plaintiff and its
location (North or South). The remaining facts regarding
- 11 -
the boundaries, as mentioned in the respective documents
under which the plaintiff and the defendant claims title and
possession, are not seriously disputed. The plaintiff
contended that his property measures 1 acre and
38 guntas, and that 18 guntas of his land has been
encroached by the defendant, who had constructed a
building on the said land. These crucial facts were
determined by referring to the documents available on the
record. Therefore, there is no error apparent on the face
of the record in the impugned judgment as contended by
the learned counsel for review petitioner.
11. On going through the judgment passed by the
Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA.No.1815/2017,
dated 20.12.2024, the Co-ordinate Bench has considered
the contentions urged by the petitioner and they were
addressed. We do not find any error apparent on the face
of the record to review the said judgment and decree
passed by Co-ordinate Bench of this Court. The grounds
made out in the review petition are nothing, but calling
upon the Court to rehear and pass fresh judgment, that is
- 12 -
not permissible, as held by the Apex Court in the case
referred supra.
As a result, the review petition is devoid of any
merits, hence dismissed.
Since the review petition itself is dismissed,
IA.No.2/2025 filed for the relief of temporary injunction
does not survive for consideration. Accordingly,
IA.No.2/2025 and all other applications, if any pending,
stands disposed of.
Sd/-
(JAYANT BANERJI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(UMESH M ADIGA)
JUDGE
bk/
