Dismissed

Sri B N Yashodhara v. Sri B N Rohit @ Puttu Raju

Karnataka HC9 Dec 2024RP/99/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge order dismissing a review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. The High Court held that the petition sought a rehearing and was not maintainable, referencing Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati principles that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used for repetition of old arguments or appreciation of evidence. The petition was turned down.

What did the court decide?

Review petition rejected; no other relief granted.

Sri B N Yashodhara Vs Sri B N Rohit @ Puttu… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:50845 RP No. 99 of 2024

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶7

REVIEW PETITION NO. 99 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI B N YASHODHARA S/O LATE B L NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS R/O NO.830, 12^TH MAIN, 4^TH STAGE, T K LAYOUT, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA MYSORE CITY - 570001

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. SHASTRI GANAPATI SHRIPAD, ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI B N ROHIT @ PUTTU RAJU S/O LATE NANJAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS R/O NO.830, 7^TH CROSS 12^TH MAIN, 4^TH STAGE, CHAMARAJA MOHALLA TONACHIKOPPALU MYSORE CITY - 570 001

¶15

¶16

NC: 2024:KHC:50845 RP No. 99 of 2024

¶17

PRESIDENT

¶18

MAINTENANCE ADN WELFARE OF SENIOR CITIZEN TRIBUNAL AND ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER MYSORE SUB DIVISION

¶19

MYSORE - 570 001

¶20

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAINTENANCE AND WELFARE OF SENIOR CITIZEN AND DISTRICT MAGISTRATE COURT REP. BY DEPUTY COMMISSIONER

¶21

MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU - 570 001

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SMT. PATRICIA GONSALUER, ADV. FOR R1)

¶24

THIS RP IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 14.02.2024 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WRIT PETITION NO.18755/2022 (ANNEXURE A) BY RECALLING THE SAME AND ALLOW THE ABOVE PETITION WITH COSTS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

¶27

NC: 2024:KHC:50845 RP No. 99 of 2024

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

Heard the learned counsel Sri.Shastri Ganapati Shripad, appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Smt. Patricia Gonsaluer, appearing for respondent No.1.

¶31

The petitioner is before this Court seeking review of an order dated 14.02.2024 passed in W.P.No.18755/2022. By the said order, this Court set aside both the orders of the Assistant Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner and directed restoration of status quo ante. Status quo ante was the position that prevailed prior to any person going before the Assistant Commissioner invoking Section 23 of the Act. There is no warrant of any change in the order as the orders are set aside and the status quo ante is axiomatic.

¶32

Permitting review of this order would be hearing the matter all over again, which runs counter to the judgment of

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:50845 RP No. 99 of 2024

¶35

the Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati¹ ,

¶36

wherein it has held as follows:

¶37

" 20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

¶38

(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;

¶39

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;

¶40

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

¶41

The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd.

¶42

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:

¶43

(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.

¶44

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

¶45

(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.

¶46

(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.

¶47

(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error.

¶48

1 (2013) 8 SCC 320

¶49

¶50

NC: 2024:KHC:50845 RP No. 99 of 2024

¶51

(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.

¶52

(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.

¶53

(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.

¶54

(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. ”

¶55

The review petition would not be entertainable, in

¶56

the light of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court and is therefore, turned down.

¶57

In that light, the petition lacking in merit, stands

¶58

rejected.

¶59

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶60

KG List No.: 1 Sl No.: 164

Sri B N Yashodhara v. Sri B N Rohit @ Puttu Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri B N Yashodhara v. Sri B N Rohit @ Puttu Raju

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mr Imran Vs State of Karnataka by

Sri C Ravindra Vs State of Karnataka

Krishnamachari Manjunath Vs State of Karnataka

Mr Rajashekar Vs State of Karnataka

Mr. Mujeeb Rahaman Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Ashutosh Mishra Vs the State of Karnataka