The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a review petition filed against a judgment dismissing an appeal. The court held that no error was apparent on the face of the record and found the petition an abuse of process for failing to appeal to the Apex Court despite prior affidavits.
The review petitions 324 of 2023 have been 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:39019 RP No. 324 of 2023
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. 324 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. B. N. NANJUNDASWAMY, S/O NANJUNDAIAH, AGED 63 YEARS, R/AT NO. 21/8/1C, KADIRENAHALLI, PADMANABHANAGAR II STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 070.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI. B. PUTTASWAMY, S/O SRI. BASAVAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, (DEAD REPRESENTED BY HIS LRS)
NC: 2023:KHC:39019 RP No. 324 of 2023
…RESPONDENTS
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. 1439/2018 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL AND DECREE THE SUIT OF THE APPELLANT/PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, 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.1439/2018, whereby the said appeal preferred by the appellant was dismissed by this Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:39019 RP No. 324 of 2023
16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:—
(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.
NC: 2023:KHC:39019 RP No. 324 of 2023
(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.
15.03.2023, the appellant filed an application I.A.1/2023 seeking stay of this Court’s order so as to enable him to approach the Apex Court. In the Affidavit in support of the said application, the appellant specifically stated that he intends to challenge the impugned judgment and decree before the Apex Court. Accordingly, this Court kept the impugned judgment and decree in abeyance for a period of two months from 15.03.2023.
NC: 2023:KHC:39019 RP No. 324 of 2023
devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/JUDGE
NG/SRL List No.:1 Sl No.: 59 CT: BHK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition discloses an error apparent on the face of the record as per the provisions of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC?
Whether the petition constitutes an abuse of process by reagitating issues after agreeing to approach the Supreme Court?
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar RawatReferred¶27
Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat – Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020
S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai KannanReferred¶27
S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan – (2023) SCC Online SC 185 · Who else cites this
S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana ReddyReferred¶27
S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy – Civil Appeal Nos.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax OfficerReferred¶27
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer –2023 SCC Online SC 1406 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Sri. B. N. Nanjundaswamy
Smt. N. Ranjini
Sri. B. Puttaswamy (represented by his LRs)
Smt. Manjula
Sri. Vinay Kumar
Smt. Anitha
S.R.Krishna Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
