Review Petition dismissed as an abuse of the process of law. The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record and noted the petitioner failed to approach the Supreme Court despite repeated opportunities for stay.
Review petition is devoid of merits and is 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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2ND DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO. 323 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. B.N. NANJUNDASWAMY, S/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED 63 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 21/8/1C, KADIRENAHALLI, PADMANABHANAGAR II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVI SHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SMT. N. RANJINI, D/O SRI. NARAYAN, AGED 43 YEARS, R/AT NO. 298, 26TH CROSS, BANASHANKARI II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070.
…RESPONDENT
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 15TH MARCH 2023 PASSED IN RFA NO. 1438/2018 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND DECREE THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This review petition is directed against the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.03.2023 passed RFA No.1438/2018, whereby the said appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by this Court.
16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:—
NC: 2023:KHC:39018 RP No. 323 of 2023
(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.
(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.
(iii) 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 apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.
(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.”
(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and
cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”
(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.
(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.
(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.
NC: 2023:KHC:39018 RP No. 323 of 2023
NC: 2023:KHC:39018 RP No. 323 of 2023
appellant moved the matter on 14.07.2023, on which date, the time was once again extended by this Court upto 05.08.023.
devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
NG/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27 CT: BHK
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition is maintainable when the appellant previously moved for stay to approach the Supreme Court but failed to do so.
Whether a review petition is liable to be dismissed as an abuse of the process of the court for failing to approach the Supreme Court despite extensions.
Whether the impugned judgment and decree suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting a review.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat – Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020Referred¶19
S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan – (2023) SCC Online SC 185Referred¶19
S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy – Civil Appeal Nos.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022Referred¶19
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer – 2023 SCC Online SC 1406Referred¶19
B.N. Nanjundaswamy
N. Ranjini
S.R. Krishna Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
