The Delhi High Court dismissed a review petition challenging a judgment in RSA No. 1376/2022. The petitioners contended that Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act was overlooked. The court held that no error was apparent on the face of the record and reviewing the matter would amount to rewriting the judgment.
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. 9 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF MARCH, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA
REVIEW PETITION NO. 9 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
AGED ABOUT 79 YEARS
Digitally signed by SUNITHA GANGARAJU Location: High Court Of Karnataka
PETITIONER NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT YALAGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI
CHICKABALLAPUR TALUK - 562 101.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIVEK SUBHAREDDY, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. K.MURTHY, ADVOCATE)
RP No. 9 of 2023
AND:
THE RESPONDENTS NO.2 AND 3 ARE R/AT YALAGERE VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI CHICKABALLAPUR TALUK PIN.NO.562 101
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PADMANABHA.V.MOHALE,
SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. B.M.IRISHAD AHMED, ADVOCATE FOR R1(VC)
V/O DTD: 03/03/23 NOTICE TO R2 IS HELD SUFFICIENT R3 SERVED)
THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER MEMORANDUM OF REVIEW PETITON UNDER XLVII RULE 1 AND 3 R/W SECTION 114 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 14/10/2022 IN RSA NO.1376/2022 AND THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE PRESENT REVIEW PETITON AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE RSA NO. 1376/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE - A IN THE INTERESS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
RP No. 9 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The petitioners being appellant Nos.1 to 6 in RSA No.1376 of 2022 have filed the review petition seeking to review the judgment dated 14.10.2022.
1 (2003) 12 SCC 339
RP No. 9 of 2023
Assistant Commissioner, Tiptur, Tumkur district and
others2 in support of his contention that when a party raised several contentions but the High Court had not adverted to in
its judgment, in such case, it is open for the party to file an application for review. Considering the materials on record and the decisions relied on by the parties the judgment already delivered by this Court is to be reviewed.
2 1996 SCC Online Kar 540
3 (2004) 13 SCC 364
RP No. 9 of 2023
representatives Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others4 , and M. Sanjeeve Gowda and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others5 in support of his contention that to entertain the petition of review, there must be an error apparent on the face of the record. The jurisdiction of review cannot be stretched to reconsider the materials on record once again.
4 (2019) 5 SCC 86
5 2011 SCC Online Kar 3883
RP No. 9 of 2023
Court has considered all the materials on record elaborately in the light of the contentions urged while addressing the arguments and specifically held that there is no pleadings regarding hardship which the appellant may suffer in case the relief of specific performance is granted. Under such circumstances, grievance of the petitioner that Section 20 of Specific Relief act is not considered, cannot be accepted. In view of the decisions relied on by the learned Senior advocate, the position of law is very well settled that unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record, the judgment already passed cannot be reviewed to reconsider the materials on record once again. If the contentions urged in the review petition are considered, it would amount to rewriting the judgment once again which is not permissible under order XLVII Rules 1 and 3 of CPC. Hence, I do not find any merits in the petition filed by the review petitioner.
Accordingly, the petition is dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
SKS
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition is maintainable when the grievance alleges that Section 20 of the Specific Relief Act was not considered by the Court.
Whether the jurisdiction of review can be stretched to reconsider materials on record or rewrite a judgment.
是否存在 error apparent on the face of the record sufficient to allow a review petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Eastern Coalfields Ltd. v. S.K. Joscon Services (P) Ltd.Explained¶39
Eastern Coalfields Vs. Joscon (2003) 12 SCC 339 · Who else cites this
C. Rangaiah and others Vs. Assistant Commissioner, Tiptur, Tumkur district and othersExplained¶44
Malapali Munaswamy Naidu Vs. P. Sumathi 1996 SCC Online Kar 540Explained¶47
Asharfi Devi (dead) through Legal representatives Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others (2004) 13 SCC 364Explained¶48
M. Sanjeeve Gowda and others Vs. State of Karnataka and others (2011) 5 SCC 86Explained¶52
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Muniyamma
Sri. Narasimha Reddy
Smt. Shantamma
Sri. Rajanna
Sri. Narasimharaju
Sri Byregowda
M G Uma
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
