Review petition against a judgment in RSA seeking re-hearing of a property dispute. The court held it could not be filed by different counsel and found no error apparent on the face of the record, dismissing the petition.
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: 2024:KHC:39021 RP No. 376 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO. 376 OF 2024
BETWEEN:
D/O CHIKKANNA W/O CHIKKERAPPA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS R/AT CHIKKATHOTLUKERE NEAR PETECHIKKIPALYA NEAR MUSLIM GORI KORA HOBLI
TUMKURU TALUK-571 112.
AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS
W/O LATE GANGANNA
Digitally signed by CHAITHRA A Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS
PETITIONER NO.S 2 TO 5 ARE R/AT CHINAGA, KORA HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK-571 112.
NC: 2024:KHC:39021 RP No. 376 of 2024
TUMKUR TALUK-571 112.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. GIRISH .N.R, ADVOCATE)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:39021 RP No. 376 of 2024
KASABA HOBLI
TUMKUR TALUK-571 112.
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS
R3 TO R5 ARE R/AT THIRUMANAPALYA, C T KERE POST KORA HOBLI TUMKURU TALUK-571 112.
NC: 2024:KHC:39021 RP No. 376 of 2024
8. LAKSHMIKANTHA S/O GANGANNA
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS
9. HANUMANTARAYAPPA S/O GANGANNA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
R7 TO R9 ARE R/AT ROLLEPALAYA, CHINAGA MAJARE KORA HOBLI TUMKUR TALUK-571 112.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS PETITION BY GRANTING THE FOLLOWING RELIEFS (i) REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 16.09.2022 PASSED IN R.S.A. NO. 850/2022 (PAR), (ii) CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE R.S.A. NO. 850/2022 (PAR) FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THIS HONBLE COURT AND (iii) GRANT SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEFS AS ARE JUST.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM
ORAL ORDER
The captioned review petition is liable to be dismissed primarily on two counts. Firstly, the counsel who had argued the second appeal has not filed this review petition. In the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board
and Another .vs. N. Raju Reddiar and Another
NC: 2024:KHC:39021 RP No. 376 of 2024
[(1997) 1 JTSC 486], the aggrieved party cannot maintain a review petition through a different counsel than the counsel who appeared in the matter which is sought to be reviewed.
NC: 2024:KHC:39021 RP No. 376 of 2024
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 apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by invoking the power of Order XLVII of CPC.
devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed.
SD/-
(SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE
ALB
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 38
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition can be maintained through counsel different from the one who argued the original matter.
Whether the review grounds disclose an error apparent on the face of the record under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Tamil Nadu Electricity Board and Another vs. N. Raju Reddiar and AnotherRelied on
(1997) 1 JTSC 486
Ramu Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and OthersRelied on
2020 SCC Online SC 896 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Muddurangamma and others
Gangamma and others
Sachin Shankar Magadum
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Sachin Shankar Magadum
Parties & counsel
