Single Judge of Karnataka High Court dismissed Review Petition No. 448 of 2023, finding no error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order allowing W.P. 7791/2021, holding it was not an appeal in disguise.
Review petition dismissed with no order as to costs in this review.
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:39549 RP No. 448 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO. 448 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI. S. RAVIKUMAR S/O V SHAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT HULIMAVU,BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 076.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. G K SHIVA PRAKASH.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by VANDANA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
6TH CROSS, JANATHA COLONY HULIMAVU, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BANGALORE 560 076.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO 1 ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION.2 CALL FOR RECORDS IN W.P. 7791/2021 (GMCPC) ON THE FILE OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE. 3 REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 06.06.2023 PASSED IN W.P. 7791/2021 (GM-CPC) AND MODIFY THE SAME AND ETC.
NC: 2023:KHC:39549 RP No. 448 of 2023
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
This review petition is directed against the impugned order dated 06.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.7791/2021, whereby the said petition preferred by the 1st respondent was allowed by this Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:39549 RP No. 448 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.
(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:39549 RP No. 448 of 2023
not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, as held in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court.
Sd/JUDGE
DHA/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order dated 06.06.2023 in W.P. No.7791/2021 suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 of CPC.
Whether the review petition discloses any illegality or infirmity in the prior judgment to justify interference by this Court.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar RawatRelied on¶23
Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat – Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020
S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai KannanRelied on¶23
S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan – (2023) SCC Online SC 185 · Who else cites this
S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana ReddyRelied on¶23
S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy – Civil Appeal Nos.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax OfficerRelied on¶23
Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer –2023 SCC Online SC 1406 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
S. Ravikumar
B.T. Yashwanth
C Ramesh
S.R.Krishna Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
