The single-judge Bench dismissed a review petition filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. The Court held that the petition sought to rehear an appeal and failed to show any error apparent on the face of the record.
Dismissal of review petition and rejection of I.A. Nos. 1/2023 and 2/2023.
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:20026 RP No. 1 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF JUNE, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO.1 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
W/O LATE SRI PUTTANNAIAH AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS AGRICULTURISTS
R/AT MUTHINAMULLUSOGE VILLAGE HARANAHALLI HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK - 571107
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
R/AT MUTHINAMULLUSOGE VILLAGE HARANAHALLI HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK - 571107
…PETITIONERS
(BY SMT. KAVITHA D, ADVOCATE AND SRI.B.N.ANJAN KUMAR, ADVOCATES )
AND:
SRI P NAGARAJU
S/O LATE PUTTANNNAIAH (RAMANAYAKA) AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS AGRICULTURIST
NC: 2023:KHC:20026 RP No. 1 of 2023
R/AT MUTHINAMULLUSOGE VILLAGE HARANAHALLI HOBLI PERIYAPATNA TALUK - 571 107
…RESPONDENT
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CPC PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT DATED 20-09-2022 IN RSA NO.693/2020 AND ALSO THEREBY CAUSING THE APPEAL TO BE ALLOWED FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ALSO GRANT ALL SUCH RELIEFS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONERS IN THE SAID APPEAL IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The captioned review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment dated 20.09.2022 rendered in RSA No.693/2020.
petition.
NC: 2023:KHC:20026 RP No. 1 of 2023
clearly indicates that the petitioner intends to seek rehear of the appeal under the garb of review.
petitioner is not able to pinpoint to the error apparent on the face. It is a trite law that the Court cannot under the garb of review arrogate to itself the power to decide the case afresh. Parties who have 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 Kumar Rawat and Others1 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
1 2020 SCC Online SC 896
apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by invoking the power of Order XLVII of CPC.
For the foregoing reasons, the review petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.1/2023 and I.A.No.2/2023 do not survive for consideration and accordingly, they are rejected.
Sd/JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 34
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition, which sought a rehearing of the appeal under the garb of review, could be entertained.
Whether the error urged was apparent on the face of the record requiring interference under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramu Sahu(Dead) Through LRs and others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and OthersExplained¶34
2020 SCC Online SC 896 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT SUBBAMMA
SMT. PUTTAMMA
SRI P NAGARAJU
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
