Allowed

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited v. Branch-in-Charge

Karnataka HC1 Sept 2023RP/136/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka allowed a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of the CPC to recall an order that rejected connected writ petitions. The court accepted the argument that separation hearing necessitated a distinct order and vide this order recalled the impugned order and restored the writ petition for further hearing.

What did the court decide?

The review petition is allowed; the order dated 30.11.2022 is recalled; the writ petition is restored to be heard further.

M/S Rajesh Exports Limited Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:31855 RP No. 136 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2023

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

REVIEW PETITION NO. 136 OF 2023 IN WRIT PETITION No.16130/2022 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M/S. RAJESH EXPORTS LIMITED, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956, HAVING A REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO. 4, BATAVIA CHAMBERS, KUMARA KRUPA ROAD, KUMAR PARK EAST,BANGALORE-560001, R/BY ITS CHAIRMAN, MR. RAJESH MEHTA.

¶10

VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶11

Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL

¶12

Date: 2023.09.12 10:45:21 +0530

¶13

MR. RAJESH MEHTA S/O LATE JASVANTRAI MEHTA, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, NO.578, 5^TH MAIN, SADASHIVNAGAR, BANGALORE-560080.

¶14

MR. PRASHANT MEHTA S/O LATE JASVANTRAI MEHTA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS, NO. 578, 5^TH MAIN, SADASHIVNAGAR, BANGALORE-560080.

¶15

(BY SRI.GURUDAS KANNUR, SENIOR COUSNEL FOR SRI. RAGHU H.P., ADVOCATE)

¶16

… PETITIONERS

¶17

AND:

¶18

BRANCH-IN-CHARGE, CANARA BANK, LARGE CORPORATE BRANCH, RAMANASHREE ARCADE, 3^RD FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2023:KHC:31855 RP No. 136 of 2023

¶21

CANARA BANK, A COMPANY REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 1956, PRIME CORPORATE BRANCH, RAMANASHREE ARCADE, 3^RD FLOOR, M.G. ROAD, BANGALORE-560001, R/BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY.

¶22

… RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI.ARUN KUMAR K., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. CHITR A NIRMALA P., ADVOCATE)

¶24

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.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶26

ORDER

¶27

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.

¶28

The learned senior counsel representing the petitioners and the respondents 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.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:31855 RP No. 136 of 2023

¶31

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

¶32

and others reported in (2013) 8 SCC 320 . The Apex Court has held as to when a review would be maintainable and when it

¶33

would not. The Apex Court has held as follows:

¶34

20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

¶35

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

¶36

(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;

¶37

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

¶38

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

¶39

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.

¶40

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:

¶41

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

¶42

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

¶43

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

¶44

¶45

NC: 2023:KHC:31855 RP No. 136 of 2023

¶46

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.

¶47

(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.

¶48

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

¶49

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

¶50

(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.

¶51

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.

¶52