Dismissed¶49

Sri. Manjunatha v. Sri v Chitti Babu

Karnataka HC16 Feb 2026RP/110/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru, Single Judge, Sachin Shankar Magadum J., 16.02.2026) dismisses RP No. 110 of 2025 (Manjunatha & Anr. v. V. Chitti Babu & Ors.) filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC seeking review of order dated 12.02.2025 in W.P.No.33299/2024; holds review lies only for error apparent on the face of the record, is not an appeal in disguise, and fresh facts/new contentions cannot be introduced in review; no patent or glaring error found; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

The review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC is extremely limited and can be exercised only when an error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated. ¶35

Sri. Manjunatha Vs Sri v Chitti Babu — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:9365 RP No. 110 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO. 110 OF 2025

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. MANJUNATHA S/O LATE GIDDAPPA AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.76, 2^ND MAIN HOSAKEREHALLI VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI VILLAGE BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU 560 085

¶9

Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶10

SRI. B. SRIRAM S/O LATE BASAVARAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS NO.60, HOSAKEREHALLI VILLAGE UTTARAHALLI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU- 560 085.

¶11

…PETITIONERS

¶12

(BY SRI. JAYAKUMAR S. PATIL, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. MAHESH .M, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

SRI. V. CHITTI BABU S/O V. VARADARAJULU NAIDU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.18, B.K COMPLEX 21^ST MAIN ROAD, BSK II STAGE BENGALURU-560 070.

¶15

¶16

NC: 2026:KHC:9365 RP No. 110 of 2025

¶17

HC-KAR

¶18

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REVENUE DEPARTMENT MS BULDING, BENGALURU- 560 001. REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶19

THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN, D C OFFICE K G ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 009.

¶20

THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BENGALURU SOUTH SUB-DIVISION DC OFFICE, KANDAYA BHAVAN K G ROAD, BENGALURU- 560 009.

¶21

THE SPECIAL TAHSILDAR BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN, K G ROAD BENGALURU- 560 009.

¶22

…RESPONDENTS

¶23

(BY SRI. D.R. RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SHARATH S. GOWDA, ADVOCATE)

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 of CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 12.02.2025 BY THIS HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU, IN W.P.NO.33299/2024 AT ANNEXURE- A.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

This review petition is filed against the order dated

¶29

12.2.2025 passed in W.P.No.33299/2024.

¶30

¶31

NC: 2026:KHC:9365 RP No. 110 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

Having heard the learned Senior counsel

¶34

appearing for the review petitioners and learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1, this Court has examined the grounds urged in the petition.

¶35

On a careful consideration of the grounds urged in the present review petition, this Court is of the clear view that the jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is extremely limited and can be exercised only when an error apparent on the face of the record is demonstrated. A review is not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be invoked for re-arguing the matter, for re-appreciation of evidence, or for canvassing grounds which were neither urged nor considered at the time of disposal of the original proceedings.

¶36

The sine qua non for entertaining a review petition is the existence of an error apparent on the face of the record, an error which is self-evident and does not require elaborate arguments or re-examination of the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2026:KHC:9365 RP No. 110 of 2025

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

entire matter. In the absence of such manifest error, the power of review cannot be exercised. In the present case, no such patent or glaring error is pointed out in the order passed in W.P.No.33299/2024.

¶41

On the contrary, the grounds urged in the review petition seek to introduce additional facts and new contentions which were not part of the pleadings or consideration in the writ proceedings. Introduction of fresh facts or grounds, which would require a detailed examination or adjudication, is wholly impermissible in review jurisdiction. A review petition cannot be converted into a forum for placing additional material or setting up a

¶42

new case. Such an attempt clearly falls outside the parameters of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC.

¶43

Therefore, in the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record, and in view of the fact that the review petition is founded on additional facts and grounds

¶44

¶45

NC: 2026:KHC:9365 RP No. 110 of 2025

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

alien to the original lis , the present review petition is liable

¶48

to be dismissed.

¶49

Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed.

¶50