This Review Petition challenging an order dismissing a Writ Petition was dismissed. The High Court held that no error apparent on the face of the record existed and the petition was not within the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Review petition dismissed as there was no error apparent on the face of the record.
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 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REVIEW PETITION NO.53 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
THE EMPLOYES SPARR GROUP OF COMPANIES, GROUP OF COMPANIES, NAMELY M/S SPARR EQUIPMENTS LTD., REP. BY ITS GENERAL SECRETARY, MR. VASANTHA C. HEGEDE, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT NO.29, 2ND MAIN ROAD, GDP EXTENTION, VYALIKAVAL BENGALURU – 560 033.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. VIDYA S., ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
COROPORATION LIMITED (KSIIDC) HAVING ITS COPORATE OFFICE AT KHANIJA BHAVAN, 4TH FLOOR, EAST WING, NO.49, RACE COURSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 001. REP. BY IT’S MANAGING DIRECTOR.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MANJUNATHA N., ADVOCATE FOR R2;
SRI. BIPIN HEDGE, ADVOCATE FOR R3;
VIDE ORDER DATED 11.04.2023. NOTICE TO R1 AND R4 IS HELD SUFFICIENT)
THE ADVOCATE FOR THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 03/09/2013 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.2597/2012 AND ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION FILED BEFORE THIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
NC: 2024:KHC:40323 RP No. 53 of 2022
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA
ORAL ORDER
Though the matter is listed for orders, with the consent of learned counsel for the petitioner, it is taken up for final disposal.
XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC. Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC contemplates as under:
NC: 2024:KHC:40323 RP No. 53 of 2022
1. Application for review of judgment.— (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—
(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,
(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or
(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,
and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order.
(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review.
1[Explanation. — The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.]
5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja V/s Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR
1995 SC 455 at para 8, held as under:
8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the
NC: 2024:KHC:40323 RP No. 53 of 2022
scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the Court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047, speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the following pertinent observations: (para 3):
"It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of Plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was
NC: 2024:KHC:40323 RP No. 53 of 2022
not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of Appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court."
Now it is also to be kept in view that in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly observed that they were entertaining the review petition only on the ground of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. So far as that aspect is concerned, it has to be kept in view that an error apparent on the face
NC: 2024:KHC:40323 RP No. 53 of 2022
of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any longdrawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137, wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court has made the following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record:
"An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from selfevident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the
NC: 2024:KHC:40323 RP No. 53 of 2022
powers of the superior court to issue such
a writ."
in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meera Bhanja supra , the power to review is available only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not then erroneous decision. The power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC may be opened inter alia only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record and a review application cannot be held to be an appeal in disguise.
NC: 2024:KHC:40323 RP No. 53 of 2022
ORDER
Sd/(K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE
TMP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 8
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record in the impugned order dated 03/09/2013 to warrant a review.
Whether the present review petition falls within the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Smt. Meera Bhanja V/s Smt. Nirmala Kumari ChoudhuryApplied¶43
Smt. Meera Bhanja V/s Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 · Who else cites this
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak SharmaExplained¶48
Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047 · Who else cites this
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa TirumaleExplained¶56
Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
The Employes Sparr Group of Companies
M/s Sparr Equipment Limited
Karnataka State Industrial Investment and Development Corporation Limited
Karnataka State Financial Corporation
M/s Denso Kirloskar Industries Private Limited
K.S. Hemalekha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
