Dismissed¶131

Smt Bhagya B R v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC28 Oct 2025RP/551/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC dismisses review petition RP No. 551 of 2024 (decided 28-10-2025, Justice K.S. Hemalekha) seeking review of order dt. 29.07.2024 in W.P.No.48330/2018 and extension of time to deposit VRS amount; scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC r/w S.114 CPC; error apparent on face of record versus erroneous decision; Meera Bhanja (AIR 1995 SC 455) relied on; Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma (AIR 1979 SC 1047) and Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde (AIR 1960 SC 137) referred; petition dismissed as devoid of merits.

What did the court decide?

The power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is available only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not an erroneous decision; a review application cannot be held to be an appeal in disguise. ¶126

Smt Bhagya B R Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC:42925 RP No. 551 of 2024

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶4

DATED THIS THE 28^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶7

REVIEW PETITION NO.551 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. BHAGYA B.R. AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, W/O MAHESH K.R. R/AT NO.4, 16^TH CROSS, BEHIND BBMP OFFICE, NEAR KRISHNAPPA HOSTEL, BAGALGUNTE, BENGALURU-560 073.

¶10

SMT. KAMALAMMA .H AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O PANDURANGA .M R/AT NO.24, SRI LAKSHMINARAYANA NILAYA, RAMAIAH GYM BEHIND, SINGAPURA, BENGALURU-560 097.

¶11

Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

SMT. SEETHALAKSHMI .P AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O PARTHASARATHI .A R/AT NO.117, 4^TH CROSS, 11^TH MAIN, RAGHAVENDRA LAYOUT, K.G. HALLI, BENGALURU-560 015.

¶13

SMT. JAYALALITHA .M AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, W/O SHAMBU H.S., R/AT NO.13/N, GR LAYOUT, BRAMARAMBA NILAYA, 1^ST MAIN, KEREGUDDAHALLI, BEHIND GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, CHIKKABANAVARA, BENGALURU-560 090.

¶14

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:42925 RP No. 551 of 2024

¶15

HC-KAR

¶16

SMT. MANJULA .S AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶17

W/O RAMDAS .M R/AT NO.4, AMBABHAVANI NAGARA, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, VIDYANAGAR POST, BENGALURU-560 097.

¶18

SMT. LAKSHMI M.G.S., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, W/O K.B. SHASHIDHAR, R/AT NO.5, 4^TH CROSS, HALE GANGAPPA LAYOUT, CHIKKABIDRAKALLU, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560 073.

¶19

SRI ARAVIND KULKARNI, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, S/O LATE HANUMANTH RAO, R/AT NO.3016, 2^ND FLOOR,

¶20

JANAPRIYA APARTMENT, KADABAGERE CROSS,

¶21

BENGALURU-562 123.

¶22

…PETITIONERS

¶23

(BY SRI VIJAYA KRISHNA BHAT M., ADVOCATE)

¶24

AND:

¶25

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR, VIDHANA SOUDHA,

¶26

BENGALURU-560 001.

¶27

THE ASSISTANT LABOUR COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU DIVISION, BENGALURU-560 029.

¶28

M/S. ADC INDIA COMMUNICATIONS LTD., NO.10C, 2^ND PHASE, PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA, BENGALURU-560 058

¶29

REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:42925 RP No. 551 of 2024

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

SMT. RAMADEVI .B AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, D/O LATE BETTAIAH, R/AT NO.31, 2^ND MAIN, NANJAMBA AGRAHARA, 5^TH MAIN, CHAMARAJAPETE, BENGALURU-560 018.

¶33

KARNATAKA TRADE UNION CENTRE NO.43, 2^ND FLOOR, MIG-2^ND STAGE, KHB COLONY, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT,

¶34

SRI G.R. SHIVASHANKAR.

¶35

SMT. NAGALAKSHMI Y.N. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O K.N. GOPALAKRISHNAN, R/AT ‘GANESH NILAYAM’, NO.58, 2^ND MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, PATEL NARAYANA SWAMAPPA LAYOUT,

¶36

CHUNCHAGHATTA MAIN ROAD,

¶37

KONANKUNTE POST, BENGALURU-560 062.

¶38

SMT. VIMALA BAI .V AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O K. SHANTH PRAKASH RAO, R/AT NO.1433, 9^TH CROSS, 9^TH MAIN ROAD, MAHESHWARAMMA CIRCLE,

¶39

BENGALURU-560 057.

¶40

SMT. V. GEETHA BALI AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, W/O K. VENKATA RAO, R/AT NO.311/2, 2^ND MAIN, BAHUBALINAGAR, JALAHALLI VILLAGE, BENGALURU-560 013.

¶41

SMT. NEELAMMA S.B. AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O RAJANNA .T R/AT NO.518, 7^TH A MAIN ROAD, RAJESHWARINAGARA, LAGGERE, BENGALURU-560 058.

¶42

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:42925 RP No. 551 of 2024

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

SMT. PUSHPALATHA G.R. AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O CHINNAMARALAH, R/AT NO.U-36, PIPELINE, BASAPPA GARDEN, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶45

SMT. V. SUBBALAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O V. RAMESH, R/AT NO.927, 3^RD MAIN,

¶46

3^RD CROSS, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 040.

¶47

SMT. UMAMESHWARL K.E. AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, W/O E. REVANNA SIDDAPPA, R/AT NO.94, 11^TH MAIN, PIPELINE ROAD, SRINIVASANAGAR, SUNKADAKATTE, BENGALURU-560 091.

¶48

SMT. C.S. UMADEVI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O CHANDRAPPA K.R. R/AT NO.399, 9^TH CROSS,

¶49

8^TH MAIN, BHUVANESHWARI NAGAR,

¶50

T. DASARAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 057.

¶51

SMT. BHAGYA .T AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS,

¶52

W/O LATE JAYARAM, R/AT THIMMALAH BUILDING,

¶53

D. NO.248/1, CHOKKASANDRA MAIN ROAD, DASARAHALLI POST, BENGALURU-560 057.

¶54

SMT. H. LAKSHMI, AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O R. MANJUNATHA, R/AT NO.45/58, 12^TH CROSS, 1^ST MAIN ROAD, KODANDARAMPURAM, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003.

¶55

SMT. JAYANTHI .R AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS, W/O SRINIVASAN .K

¶56

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42925 RP No. 551 of 2024

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

R/AT NO.115, ANUSUYA CHANDRAPPA LAYOUT, BHARATNAGAR, M.S. PALYA ROAD, VIDYARANAYAPURA POST,

¶59

BENGALURU-560 097.

¶60

SMT. KUMUDA T.S., AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O LATE P.T. AIYANA, R/AT NO.494, 2^ND BLOCK, 9^TH MAIN, HMT LAYOUT, VIDYARANAYANPURA, BENGALURU-560 097.

¶61

SMT. GEETHA .J AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O K. CHANDRASHEKAR, R/AT NO.213, 28^TH CROSS, 2^ND BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010.

¶62

SMT. B. JYOTHI, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, W/O LATE SHASHIDHARAN .S R/AT ASHIRWAD, NO.21, III CROSS, II PHASE, GOKULA III STAGE, YESHAWANTHAPURA, BENGALURU-560 022.

¶63

SMT. MANGALAGOWRI .S AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, D/O SUBRAYAPPA, R/AT NO.17, SHIVAPURA MAIN ROAD, BENGALURU-560 058.

¶64

SRI CHANNAKESHAVA SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O GUNDU SHETTY, R/AT SITE NO.16, 2^ND CROSS, MARUTHI LAYOUT, CHOKKASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 058.

¶65

SRI K.B. SHASHIDHAR, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O LATE K.L. BHEEMA RAO, R/AT NO.5, 4^TH CROSS, HALE GANGAPPA LAYOUT,

¶66

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:42925 RP No. 551 of 2024

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

CHIKKABIDRAKALLU, NAGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU-560 073.

¶69

SMT. LALITHA B.B. AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, W/O SHANKARE GOWDA P.D. R/AT 2^ND MAIN ROAD, NANJAMBA AGRAHARA, CHAMARAJAPET, BENGALURU-560 018.

¶70

SMT. GANGAMMA .G AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O LATE SURANARAYAN RAO, R/AT NO.8/3, 1^ST MAIN, NANJAMBA AGRAHARA,

¶71

CHAMARAJAPETE, BENGALURU-560 018.

¶72

SMT. SUDHA .R AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, W/O VENKATESH MURTHY .G R/AT NO.108, BEHIND KABIR MUTT, SUNKENAHALLI, HANUMANTHNAGAR, BENGALURU-560 019.

¶73

SRI P. SURIBABU, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, S/O PEDDAHONNAPPA, R/AT MUNIKONDAPPA LAYOUT, I CROSS, BAGALAGUNTE, BENGALURU-560 073.

¶74

…RESPONDENTS

¶75

(BY SRI HARISHA A.S., AGA R-1 & R-2; SRI S.N. MURTHY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. ROOPASRI S., ADVOCATE FOR R-3; V/O DATED 06.02.2025, NOTICE TO R-4 TO R-26 D/W)

¶76

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47, RULE 1, READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 29.07.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.48330/2018 AND AN OBSERVATION BE MADE IN THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE ORDER EXTENDING TIME GRANTED TO DEPOSIT THE VRS AMOUNT AND PERMIT THEM TO DEPOSIT THE VRS AMOUNT.

¶77

¶78

NC: 2025:KHC:42925 RP No. 551 of 2024

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

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

¶81

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶82

ORAL ORDER

¶83

The review petitioners seek to review the order dated

¶84

29.07.2024 passed by this Court in W.P No. 48330/2018, whereby the Writ Petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

¶85

Heard Sri. Vijay Krishna Bhat, learned counsel for

¶86

the petitioners, Sri Harisha A.S, learned AGA, for respondent No.2 and Sri S.N.Murthy, learned senior counsel for respondent No.3 and perused the material on record including the order under review.

¶87

The present review petition is filed under Order

¶88

XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC contemplates as under:

¶89

1. Application for review of judgment.— (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved—

¶90

¶91

NC: 2025:KHC:42925 RP No. 551 of 2024

¶92

HC-KAR

¶93

(a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred,

¶94

(b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or

¶95

(c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,

¶96

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.

¶97

(2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the

¶98

9 - NC: 2025:KHC:42925 RP No. 551 of 2024

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

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.

¶101

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.]

¶102

4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja V/s Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury¹ at para 8, held as under:

¶103

“8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the

¶104

1 AIR 1995 SC 455

¶105

10 -

¶106

NC: 2025:KHC:42925 RP No. 551 of 2024

¶107

HC-KAR

¶108

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):

¶109

"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

¶110

11 -

¶111

NC: 2025:KHC:42925 RP No. 551 of 2024

¶112

HC-KAR

¶113

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."

¶114

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

¶115

12 -

¶116

NC: 2025:KHC:42925 RP No. 551 of 2024

¶117

HC-KAR

¶118

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:

¶119

"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

¶120

13 -

¶121

NC: 2025:KHC:42925 RP No. 551 of 2024

¶122

HC-KAR

¶123

powers of the superior court to issue such

¶124

a writ."

¶125

On plain reading of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and

¶126

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 an erroneous decision. The power of review under Order XLVII 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.

¶127