Dismissed

Ragini B Deshpande D/O Late B R Deshpande v. the Superintendent of Police and the Chairman

Karnataka HC22 Jun 2012RP/323/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, in this interlocutory order on Review Petition No.323/2011, dismissed the review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. The Court held that the original writ order did not contain an error apparent on the face of the record as required by law and settled precedent.

What did the court decide?

Review petition and application for condonation of delay dismissed. No costs awarded.

Ragini B Deshpande D/O Late B R… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

¶2

DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF JUNE 2012

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR

¶7

REVIEW PETITION NO.323/2011

¶8

Between :

¶9

Ragini B. Deshpande, D/o late B.R.Deshpande, Aged about 29 years, Shankara Mandira Road, Opp.Old Post Office, Malebennur, Harihar Taluk, Davangere Taluk. …. Petitioner.

¶10

(By Sri Ranganath S. Jois, Adv.)

¶11

And :

¶12

1 The Superintendent of Police and the Chairman, Recruitment Committee, Davanagere District.

¶13

2 The Director General and Inspector General Of Police, Nrupathunga Road, Bangalore - 560 001.

¶14

3 State of Karnataka, Reptd. by its Secretary, Home Department, Vidhana Soudha, Bangalore - 560 001.

¶15

¶16

4 The Inspector General of Police, Eastern Range, Davanagere. …. Respondents.

¶17

This Review Petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC for review of the order in W.P.No.8290/2008 dated 8.4.2011, etc.

¶18

This Review Petition coming on for Hearing Interlocutory Application this day, S.ABDUL NAZEER. J., passed the following:

¶19

ORDER

¶20

The petitioner has filed this review petition seeking review

¶21

of the order in W.P.No.8290/2008 dated 8.4.2011. The contention

¶22

of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the finding in paragraph 4 is not in conformity with the materials placed on record.

¶23

A perusal of the order in the writ petition would indicate that it has been passed after consideration of the entire materials on record. It is settled that first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought suffers from error apparent on the face of the record. In the

¶24

¶25

absence of any such error, finality attached to the order cannot be disturbed. An error, which is not self evident and has to be detected by the process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the Court to exercise the power of review. Re-agitating the points already decided is impermissible in review proceedings. In BAGIRATHI AMMAL

¶26

VS. PLALANI ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION – (2009) 10 SCC 464 , the Apex Court has held that an error contemplated under Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC for permissibility of review must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one, which must be manifest on the face of the record.

¶27

In the present case, no such error has been pointed out requiring review of the order. We do not find any ground for review of the order in W.P.No.8290/2008 dated 8.4.2011. Review petition is accordingly dismissed.

¶28

¶29

4. The application-I.A.No.1/2012 seeking condonation of

¶30

delay in filing the review petition is also dismissed. No costs.

¶31

Sd/JUDGE.

¶32

Sd/JUDGE.

¶33

BMM/-