Petitioner sought review of an order refusing interest on forfeited EMD refund. Court dismissed review as devoid of merits and barred because claim was not originally raised, upholding principle against rehearing.
Review petition dismissed as devoid of merits and barred by law.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
RP No. 411 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA REVIEW PETITION NO. 411 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.K.VASANTH., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
RP No. 411 of 2022
BENGALURU - 560 041.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SMT. SINCHANA M R., ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP NO.61791/2016 (LB-BMP) ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT, HEAR THE PARTIES AND PASS THE ORDER TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 13/09/2021 PASSED IN W.P.NO.61791/2016 AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO PASS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioner is before this Court seeking review of the order dated 13.09.2021 passed in W.P.No.61791/2016 on the ground that this Court has not granted interest on the refund of EMD that was forfeited by the respondents- BBMP.
was sought in the writ petition, but did not grant any interest. Therefore, there could be no error apparent on the face of the
RP No. 411 of 2022
record qua grant of interest, in the light of the reasons so
rendered in the writ petition; entertaining the review petition for grant of interest would amount to rehearing the matter all over again. This would fall foul of the judgment of the Apex
Court rendered in the case of KAMLESH VERMA V.
MAYAWATI1 , wherein, it is held as follows;
"20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275]
1 (2013) 8 SCC 320
RP No. 411 of 2022
In the light of the facts of the case at hand and the judgment of the Apex Court ( supra ), the review petition being devoid of merits, stands dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 35
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a review petition praying for grant of interest on forfeited EMD refund, when interest was not originally sought in the writ petition, warrants rehearing the matter under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kamlesh Verma v. MayawatiReferred¶29
KAMLESH VERMA V. MAYAWATI (2013) 8 SCC 320 · Who else cites this
Chhajju Ram v. NekiReferred¶35
Chhajju Ram V. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144]
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose AthanasiusReferred¶35
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos V. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526] · Who else cites this
Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.Referred¶36
Union of India V. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337] · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI. K.S.ARUN KUMAR
THE BRUHATH BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE
M.NAGAPRASANNA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
