The Single judge dismissed the review petition filed by appellants in RFA.922/2004 seeking review of a judgment dated 11.4.2022. The court held that no error apparent on the face of the record was made out and the petition lacked merits as it amounted to a rehearing.
The review petition is dismissed as it is devoid of merits.
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.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REVIEW PETITION NO.608 OF 2022 IN
RFA NO.922 OF 2004
BETWEEN:
1(A). SMT. MAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, W/O LATE K.MARANNA
1(B). BALARAJ.M AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O LATE K.MARANNA
1(C). SMT.RENUKA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, D/O LATE K.MARANNA
1(D). SMT.AMBUJA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, D/O LATE K.MARANNA
1(E). SMT.SUVARANA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, D/O LATE K.MARANNA
ALL ARE R/AT NO.171/12, K.MARANNA COMPOUND, B.CHANNASANDRA, KALYANANAGAR, BANGALORE-560043.
2
...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.C M NAGABUSHANA, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 TO 5 ARE R/O DODDA BANASWADI MAIN ROAD, NEAR BUS STAND, K.R.PURAM HOBLI, BANGALORE EAST TALUK, BANGALORE-560 043
3
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.M.R.RAJAGOPAL, SR.COUNSEL FOR SRI.H.N.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO(I) REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 11/04/2022 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN RFA NO. 922/2014 & (II) TO GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF/S AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.09.2022, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned review petition is filed by the appellants in RFA.922/2004 seeking review of judgment dated 11.4.2022.
review petitioners reiterating the grounds urged in the review petition would contend that the judgment
4
under review requires reconsideration in the light of the grounds urged in the review petition. To buttress his arguments he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah(dead) through legal representatives .vs. Muddasani Sarojana1 .
1 (2016) 12 SCC 288
5
Court in the case of Muddsani Venkata Narsaiah
was not cited. Taking this Court through the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel would contend that the review petitioners' title is not at all disputed by the respondents. Learned counsel has made efforts in persuading this Court to revisit the pleadings of the parties more particularly paras 2 and 3 of the plaint as well paras 2 and 3 of the written statement.
review petition, this Court is of the view that no error apparent is made out. It is a trite law that the Court cannot under the cover of review arrogate to itself the power to decide the case afresh. Parties who has suffered a decree cannot persuade to reassess the evidence. The Apex Court in the case of Ramu Sahu(Dead) Through LRs and others .vs. Vinod
6
Kumar Rawat and Others2 has clearly held that
review proceedings has to be strictly confined to the ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. In the present review petition, the review petitioners have failed to point out mistake 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 warranting interference by invoking the power of Order XLVII of CPC.
Sd/JUDGE
*alb/-
2 2020 SCC Online SC 896
3 issues framed by the court
whether the review petition is maintainable under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC
whether an error apparent on the face of the record is made out in the case
whether the court can decide the case afresh under the cover of review
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (dead) through legal representatives .vs. Muddasani SarojanaReferred¶37
_Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah (dead) through legal representatives .vs. Muddasani Sarojana_ (1) (2016) 12 SCC 288 · Who else cites this
Ramu Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and others .vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and OthersExplained¶49
_Ramu Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and others .vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others_ (2) 2020 SCC Online SC 896 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. MAYAMMA AND OTHERS
P NAGARAJ AND OTHERS
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
