In a review petition filed under CPC Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114, the Karnataka High Court allowed the petition recalling an impugned order dated 30.11.2022 and restored the writ petition for further hearing on the score of a patent error.
Review petition allowed; order dated 30.11.2022 recalled; writ petition restored for further hearing.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:31851 RP No. 134 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA
REVIEW PETITION NO. 134 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION NO.13136/2021 (GM-RES)
BETWEEN:
M/S. RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING A REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.4, BATAVIA CHAMBERS, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, KUMARA PARK EAST, BANGALORE-560001, R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN. MR. RAJESH MEHTA.
… PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURUDAS KANNUR SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI.RAGHU H.P., ADVOCATE)
AND:
VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
Date: 2023.09.12 10:45:08 +0530
CANARA BANK, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT 1956, PRIME CORPORATE BRANCH, RAMANASHREE ARCADE, 3RD FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001, R/BY ITS AUTHRIZED SIGNATORY.
(BY SRI. ARUN KUMAR K. SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT.CHITRA NIRMALA .P., ADVOCATE)
… RESPONDENT
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF THE CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN THE WRIT PETITION BEARING NO. 8603/2021 BEFORE THIS HONBLE COURT & ETC.
NC: 2023:KHC:31851 RP No. 134 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This Court in terms of its order dated 30.11.2022 on hearing writ Petition No.16130/2022 had rejected all the petitions. It is later the subject review petition is preferred on the score that the order rejecting all the petitions is an error apparent on the face of the record and would necessitate review as obtaining under XLVII Rule 1 of CPC.
The learned senior counsel representing the petitioner and the respondent would take this Court to the order to demonstrate that the connected petitions had to be heard separately and separate order was necessary to be passed.
Submission merits acceptance and therefore the order requires a review as it is in tune with the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 . The Apex Court has held as to when a review would be maintainable and when it would not. The Apex Court has 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:
NC: 2023:KHC:31851 RP No. 134 of 2023
(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. Neki18 and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius 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.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.
NC: 2023:KHC:31851 RP No. 134 of 2023
The parameters laid down by the Apex Court would clearly fit into the facts of the case at hand for entertaining of the review petition.
In the light of what is aforesaid, I deem it appropriate to review the order, recall the same and restore the file to be heard.
For the aforesaid reasons, the following
ORDER
Sd/JUDGE
kmv
ct:bck
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition is maintainable on the ground that separate orders were needed for connected petitions.
Whether an order rejecting petitions constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and othersRelied on¶25
Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati and others (2013) 8 SCC 320 · Who else cites this
Chhajju Ram v. NekiReferred¶33
Chhajju Ram v. Neki
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose AthanasiusReferred¶33
Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius
Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.Referred¶33
Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
M/S. RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED
VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL
CANARA BANK
M. Nagaprasanna
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
