The High Court of Karnataka, Citing Ramu Sahu case, dismissed the review petition holding the petitioners sought to reargue the entire case instead of pointing out an error apparent on the record.
Review petition dismissed; pending applications also dismissed.
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:23739 RP No. 209 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JULY, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
REVIEW PETITION NO.209 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2023:KHC:23739 RP No. 209 of 2023
5. NAGARAJA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
ALL ARE R/AT KASAVANAHALLI VILLAGE KASABA HOBLI DODDABALLAPUR TALUK-561203 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. KHADRI S A, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2023:KHC:23739 RP No. 209 of 2023
AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
ALL ARE R/AT NO.2801 SHENIGARAPET
WARD NO.3, DODDABALLAPUR TOWN - 561 203 BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
…RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 AND 2 AND SECTION 151 OF THE CPC PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 14.02.2023, PASSED IN RSA NO.2223/2012 AND DECLARED THAT PLAINTIFFS ARE THE ABSOLUTE OWNERS IN PEACEFUL POSSESSION AND ENJOYMENT OVER SUIT SCHEDULE PROPERTIES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners.
Such a recourse is not permissible. Though this Court has given patient hearing, the learned counsel appearing for
the review petitioner is not in a position to point out the error apparent on the records.
1 2020 SCC Online SC 896
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.
is not permissible under order 47 Rule 1 and 2 of CPC.
devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
In view of dismissal of the petition, the pending
applications, if any, are also dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
NBM
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petitioners have pointed out an error apparent on the face of the record.
Whether the review petition, which effectively seeks re-arguing the case, is permissible under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ramu Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and OthersReferred¶48
_Ramu Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others_ 1 2020 SCC Online SC 896 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 1 enactments
RAJANNA S/O LATE MUNISHAMAPPA SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS & OTHERS
SRI. S.S.PUTTARAJU S/O LATE SHANKARAIAH & OTHERS
SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
