Disposed¶61

Additonal Chief Secretary v. M/S Reddy Gun House

Karnataka HC23 Jan 2026RP/331/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

RP No. 331 of 2025; High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru; decision 23-01-2026; M.Nagaprasanna J.; Review Petition; Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; Section 114 CPC; error apparent on the face of the record; review maintainability; review not an appeal in disguise; re-hearing; sitting in appeal; Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati (2013) 8 SCC 320; gun/arms licence renewal; Bidadi Town Municipal Council; Gram Panchayat sanction plan; completion certificate; W.P.No.2960/2025(GM-RES); Reddy Gun House; review petition disposed, no interference with writ order dated 06.03.2025.

What did the court decide?

There is no warrant of interference even in review of the order dated 06.03.2025 disposing W.P.No.2960/2025. ¶35

Additonal Chief Secretary Vs M/S Reddy Gun House — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶61

Issue for consideration

Whether there is an error apparent on the face of the record of the order dated 06.03.2025 in W.P.No.2960/2025 warranting review and recall of that order. +1 more

¶30

Court's answer

There is no warrant of interference even in review of the order dated 06.03.2025 disposing W.P.No.2960/2025.

¶35

Ratio / Principle

Further hearing in review on whether the licence was appropriately directed to be granted would amount to re-hearing the matter all over again or sitting in appeal over the order already passed, which cannot be done in the light of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati, 2013 (8) SCC 320; accordingly the Review Petition stands disposed.

¶39

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC filed by the State (Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, and District Commissioner, Ramanagara) seeking review and recall of the order dated 06.03.2025 in W.P.No.2960/2025(GM-RES), by which the respondent gun house's licence matter was disposed. The State contended an error apparent on the face of the record: as on the date of grant of the licence the building was not in existence; the sanction plan was issued by the Gram Panchayat on 08.07.2015, whereas the Bidadi Town Municipal Council came into existence on 10.09.2015; and the completion certificate was not placed within the time limit prescribed under the Act, so the licence could not have been renewed without the building being in place. The respondent's counsel countered that the Municipality has been collecting rents, taxes and statutory payments from the shops in the buildings. The Court held that pursuing these points in review would amount to re-hearing the matter all over again or sitting in appeal over the order already passed, which cannot be done in the light of Kamlesh Verma vs. Mayawati, 2013 (8) SCC 320 (quoting its enunciation of when review is and is not maintainable, review being by no means an appeal in disguise and lying only for patent error). Finding no warrant of interference even in review, except that clarification, the Review Petition stands disposed. (Coram: M.Nagaprasanna, J.)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:4073 RP No. 331 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 23^RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶8

REVIEW PETITION NO. 331 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY,

¶11

HOME DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU – 560 001.

¶12

DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, VIJAYA NAGAR,

¶13

RAMANAGARA – 562 159.

¶14

…PETITIONERS

¶15

(BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Digitally signed by NAGAVENI Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

M/S.REDDY GUN HOUSE, REGISTERED COMPANY ACT 2013, OFFICE AT NO.21, GROUND FLOOR, TKM MAIN ROAD, MEDANAHALLI, BIDADI, RAMANAGARA – 562 109. REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR ARPITHA.

¶19

…RESPONDENT

¶20

(BY SRI. S.PRAVEEN, ADVOCATE)

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CODE OF CIVIL

¶22

¶23

NC: 2026:KHC:4073 RP No. 331 of 2025

¶24

HC-KAR

¶25

PROCEDURE, 1908, PRAYING TO A) REVIEW AND RECALL THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 06.03.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.2960/2025(GM-RES).

¶26

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

¶27

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA

¶28

ORAL ORDER

¶29

Heard Sri.Shamanth Naik, learned HCGP appearing for the petitioners, Sri.S.Praveen, learned counsel appearing for the respondent and have perused the material on record.

¶30

The Writ Petition No.2960/2025 comes to be disposed by an order dated 06.03.2025. The State has preferred the Review Petition on the score that there is an error apparent on the face of the record while disposing the subject petition and certain material could not be placed. According to the learned AGA, appearing for the State, he would submit that as on the date of grant of license, the building was not in existence. Therefore, the license could not be directed to be renewed without the building being in place. Learned counsel

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:4073 RP No. 331 of 2025

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

seeks to impress upon the fact that the sanction plan was on 8.7.2015 by the Gram Panchayat but the Bidadi Town Municipal Council has come with effect from 10.09.2015, which is two months after the grant of license for renewal. Learned counsel submits that the completion certificate ought to have been placed within the time limit prescribed under the Act and the completion certificate having not been placed, it cannot be that the petitioner's license could have been renewed without the building being in place.

¶34

Learned counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner Mr.Praveen S, would submit that it is only with regard to this grant of license, the State is wanting to project the illegality but the Bidadi Town Municipal Council has been collecting rents, taxes, whatever all statutory payments of all the shops that are in the buildings including this. Therefore, it cannot be projected that the building is not in place and the plan sanction was not available in a case for grant of a fresh license for selling arms. This Court after a detailed order, has allowed the petition.

¶35

Except the aforesaid clarification that there is no warrant of interference even in Review, further hearing of the matter even

¶36

¶37

NC: 2026:KHC:4073 RP No. 331 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

on the issue of whether license was directed to be granted appropriately or not, would amount to re-hearing the matter all over again or sitting in appeal over the order that is already passed by this Court which cannot be done in the light of the

¶40

judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAMLESH VERMA

¶41

vs. MAYAWATI , 2013 (8) SCC 320, which reads as follows:

¶42

" 20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

¶43

( 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;

¶44

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

¶45

( iii ) Any other sufficient reason.

¶46

The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] 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. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275]

¶47

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:

¶48

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

¶49

( ii ) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

¶50

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

¶51

¶52

NC: 2026:KHC:4073 RP No. 331 of 2025

¶53

HC-KAR

¶54

( 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.

¶55

( 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.

¶56

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

¶57

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

¶58

( 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.

¶59

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

¶60

(Emphasis supplied)

¶61