Smt. Asha M Jain Vs Smt. Kavitha M

SMT. ASHA M. JAIN W/O. SRI. MAHENDRA KUMAR S. JAIN, D/O. SRI. JUHARMALJI S. JAIN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.97, 4^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, WIDIA LAYOUT SOCIETY, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. PARASMAL B @ PARAS JAIN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

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

¶15

SMT. KAVITHA .M W/O. SRI SHANKAR NAIK G.K. AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.812, 12^TH MAIN ROAD, HOYSALA ROAD, SRI VINAYAKA LAYOUT, NEAR SWATHI RESTAURANT, NAGARABHAVI 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 072. AND ALSO AT PROPERTY BEARING NO.148, (NEW NO.310), SITUATED AT 15^TH CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 056.

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

2 -

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:14727 RP No. 468 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN R.F.A.NO.2485/2023 DATED 20.08.2025 ON ACCOUNT OF ERROR APPEARENT ON RECORD AND FOR OTHER REASONS, STATED IN THE PETITION, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

¶21

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

¶22

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

¶23

ORAL ORDER

¶24

The present review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment dated 20.08.2025 passed in RFA No.2485/2023, whereby this Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Trial Court rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

¶25

Learned counsel for the review petitioner reiterates that, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court ought to have confined itself to the plaint averments and that this Court erred in referring to the vendor’s sale deed while affirming the rejection of the plaint. According to the review petitioner,

¶26

3 -

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:14727 RP No. 468 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

the plaint discloses a valid cause of action, and therefore, the judgment requires review.

¶30

The scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 is extremely limited. A review is maintainable only where there exists an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important evidence, which could not be produced earlier, despite due diligence. A review petition cannot be used to re-argue the matter or to seek a rehearing of the case on merits.

¶31

The law is well settled that review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be invoked merely because a party seeks a rehearing of the matter. A review lies only for the correction of an error apparent on the face of the record and not for re-appreciation of the case.

¶32

4 -

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:14727 RP No. 468 of 2025

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

5. The Apex Court in the case of Lily Thomas

¶36

and others¹ (Lily Thomas) has held at paragraph Nos.52 and 58 as under:

¶37

“52. The dictionary meaning of the word “review” is “the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement”. It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. This Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in a miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error. This Court in S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka held : (SCC pp. 61920, para 19)

¶38

1 (2000) 6 SCC 224

¶39

5 -

¶40

NC: 2026:KHC:14727 RP No. 468 of 2025

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

“19. Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or reconsideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts and even the statutes lean strongly in favour of finality of decision legally and properly made. Exceptions both statutorily and judicially have been carved out to correct accidental mistakes or miscarriage of justice. Even when there was no statutory provision and no rules were framed by the highest court indicating the circumstances in which it could rectify its order the courts culled out such power to avoid abuse of process or miscarriage of justice. In Raja Prithwi Chand Lal Choudhury v. Sukhraj Rai [AIR 1941 FC 1] the Court observed that even though no rules had been framed permitting the highest court to review its order yet it was available on the limited and narrow ground developed by the Privy Council and the House of Lords. The Court approved the principle laid down by the Privy Council in Rajunder Narain Rae v. Bijai Govind Singh [(1836) 1 Moo PC 117 : 2 MIA 181] that an order made by the Court was final and could not be altered:

¶43

6 -

¶44

NC: 2026:KHC:14727 RP No. 468 of 2025

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

‘… nevertheless, if by misprision in embodying the judgments, errors have been introduced, these courts possess, by common law, the same power which the courts of record and statute have of rectifying the mistakes which have crept in…. The House of Lords exercises a similar power of rectifying mistakes made in drawing up its own judgments, and this Court must possess the same authority. The Lords have however gone a step further, and have corrected mistakes introduced through inadvertence in the details of judgments; or have supplied manifest defects in order to enable the decrees to be enforced, or have added explanatory matter, or have reconciled inconsistencies.’

¶47

Basis for exercise of the power was stated in the same decision as under:

¶48

‘It is impossible to doubt that the indulgence extended in such cases is mainly owing to the natural desire prevailing to prevent irremediable injustice being done by a court of last resort, where by some accident, without any blame, the party has not been heard and an order

¶49

7 -

¶50

NC: 2026:KHC:14727 RP No. 468 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

has been inadvertently made as if the party had been heard.’

¶53

Rectification of an order thus stems from the fundamental principle that justice is above all. It is exercised to remove the error and not for disturbing finality. When the Constitution was framed the substantive power to rectify or recall the order passed by this Court was specifically provided by Article 137 of the Constitution. Our Constitutionmakers who had the practical wisdom to visualise the efficacy of such provision expressly conferred the substantive power to review any judgment or order by Article 137 of the Constitution. And clause (c) of Article 145 permitted this Court to frame rules as to the conditions subject to which any judgment or order may be reviewed. In exercise of this power Order XL had been framed empowering this Court to review an order in civil proceedings on grounds analogous to Order 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. The expression, ‘for any other sufficient reason’ in the clause has been given an expanded meaning and a decree or order passed under misapprehension of true state of circumstances has been held to be sufficient ground to exercise the power. Apart from Order XL Rule 1 of the Supreme Court Rules this Court has the inherent power to make such orders as may be necessary in the

¶54

8 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:14727 RP No. 468 of 2025

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

interest of justice or to prevent the abuse of process of court. The Court is thus not precluded from recalling or reviewing its own order if it is satisfied that it is necessary to do so for sake of justice.”

¶58

The mere fact that two views on the same subject are possible is no ground to review the earlier judgment passed by a Bench of the same strength.

¶59

58. Otherwise also no ground as envisaged under Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules read with Order 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been pleaded in the review petition or canvassed before us during the arguments for the purposes of reviewing the judgment in Sarla Mudgal case. It is not the case of the petitioners that they have discovered any new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence was not within their knowledge or could not be brought to the notice of the Court at the time of passing of the judgment. All pleas raised before us were in fact addressed for and on behalf of the petitioners before the Bench which, after considering those pleas, passed the judgment in Sarla Mudgal case. We have also not found any mistake or error apparent on the face of the record requiring a review. Error

¶60

9 -

¶61

NC: 2026:KHC:14727 RP No. 468 of 2025

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

contemplated under the rule must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. It must be an error of inadvertence. No such error has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the parties seeking review of the judgment. The only arguments advanced were that the judgment interpreting Section 494 amounted to violation of some of the fundamental rights. No other sufficient cause has been shown for reviewing the judgment. The words “any other sufficient reason appearing in Order 47 Rule 1 CPC” must mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule” as was held in Chhajju Ram v. Neki and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius. Error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law. In T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa this Court held that such error is an error which is a patent error and not a mere wrong decision. In Hari Vishnu Kamath v. Ahmad Ishaque it was held:

¶64

“It is essential that it should be something more than a mere error; it must be one which must be manifest on the face of the record. The real difficulty with reference to this matter, however, is not so much in the

¶65

10 -

¶66

NC: 2026:KHC:14727 RP No. 468 of 2025

¶67

HC-KAR

¶68

statement of the principle as in its application to the facts of a particular case. When does an error cease to be mere error, and become an error apparent on the face of the record? Learned counsel on either side were unable to suggest any clear-cut rule by which the boundary between the two classes of errors could be demarcated.

¶69

Mr Pathak for the first respondent contended on the strength of certain observations of Chagla, C.J. in — ‘Batuk K. Vyas v. Surat Borough Municipality’ that no error could be said to be apparent on the face of the record if it was not self-evident and if it required an examination or argument to establish it. This test might afford a satisfactory basis for decision in the majority of cases. But there must be cases in which even this test might break down, because judicial opinions also differ, and an error that might be considered by one Judge as selfevident might not be so considered by another. The fact is that what is an error apparent on the face of the record cannot be defined precisely or exhaustively, there being an element of indefiniteness inherent in its very nature, and it must be left to be

¶70

11 -

¶71

NC: 2026:KHC:14727 RP No. 468 of 2025

¶72

HC-KAR

¶73

determined judicially on the facts of each case.”

¶74

Therefore, it can safely be held that the petitioners have not made out any case within the meaning of Article 137 read with Order XL of the Supreme Court Rules and Order 47 Rule 1 CPC for reviewing the judgment in Sarla Mudgal case. The petition is misconceived and bereft of any substance.”

¶75

Further, in the case of Kamlesh Verma Vs. Mayawati and others² (Kamlesh Verma) has held at paragraph Nos.19 & 20 as under:

¶76

“19. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction.

¶77

2 (2013) 8 SCC 320

¶78

12 -

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:14727 RP No. 468 of 2025

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

Summary of the principles

¶82

20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

¶83

20.1. When the review will be maintainable:

¶84

(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;

¶85

(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of

¶86

the record;

¶87

(iii) Any other sufficient reason.

¶88

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.

¶89

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:

¶90

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

¶91

13 -

¶92

NC: 2026:KHC:14727 RP No. 468 of 2025

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.

¶95

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

¶96

(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.

¶97

(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.

¶98

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

¶99

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

¶100

(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.

¶101

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

¶102

In the present case, the contentions urged in

¶103

the review petition are nothing but a reiteration of the submission advanced in the appeal, which have already

¶104

14 -

¶105

NC: 2026:KHC:14727 RP No. 468 of 2025

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

been considered and rejected while dismissing the regular first appeal. The petitioner has not demonstrated any error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. Accordingly, no grounds are made out to entertain the review petition. Accordingly, the review petition is hereby dismissed .

¶108

Sd/-

¶109

_____________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

¶110

MBM

¶111

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 7

Smt. Asha M Jain v. Smt. Kavitha M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Asha M Jain v. Smt. Kavitha M

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M Sujendra Vs Govindappa

Rajput Samaj(Karnataka) Vs Sri Lalchand D Jain

Smt. Dhakshayani. C Vs Sri. Mithilesh. L. N.

M Sampangiramaiah Vs Narayanappa

Sri M Sampangiramaiah Vs Narayanappa

Sri Ramachandra Gowda Vs B S Narayana Gowda