Dismissed¶50

Sri Narayanappa v. Sri Mudda Hanumakka

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2026RP/518/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.), 22.04.2026 - RP No. 518 of 2024 under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC against decree dated 28.10.1997 in RSA No. 255/1997; condonation of 9056-day (27-year) delay refused under Section 5 Limitation Act; no error apparent on face of record; review cannot be appeal in disguise; subsequent co-ordinate/larger Bench decision no ground for review; relied on Shri Ram Sahu, S.Murali Sundaram, S.Madhusudhan Reddy, Sanjay Kumar Agarwal; review petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Condonation refused: the affidavit filed by the petitioner does not make out valid or sufficient ground, and the long, unexplained and inordinate delay and latches of more than 27 years (9056 days) cannot be condoned at the instance of the review petitioner; consequently application I.A.1/2024 lacks merit and is dismissed.

Sri Narayanappa Vs Sri Mudda Hanumakka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the delay of 9056 days (more than 27 years) in preferring the review petition ought to be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (I.A.1/2024). +1 more

¶25

Court's answer

¶25

Ratio / Principle

On merits, upon consideration of the entire material on record including the impugned judgment and decree, the Court finds no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree, and no error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, as held in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court (which lay down that review is confined to errors apparent on the face of the record, review cannot be an appeal in disguise, and a subsequent decision of a co-ordinate or larger Bench is by itself no ground for review).

¶45

Key takeaways

Final disposition: in view of the foregoing reasons, the review petition is devoid of merits and also barred by delay, and is hereby dismissed (paragraph 51 records the dismissal).ratio¶50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition (Order 47 Rule 1 CPC) against judgment and decree dated 28.10.1997 in RSA No.255/1997, whereby the respondent's appeal had been allowed - I.A.1/2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay of 9056 days (over 27 years) dismissed: affidavit made out no valid or sufficient ground; delay long, unexplained and inordinate. On merits, relying on Supreme Court decisions (Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat; S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan; S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy; Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer), the Court held that review is available only for a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; an error requiring a process of reasoning is not apparent; review cannot be an appeal in disguise; questions already decided cannot be reagitated under guise of review; and change in law or a subsequent decision of a co-ordinate or larger Bench is by itself no ground for review. Finding no illegality, infirmity or error apparent warranting interference under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, the review petition, being devoid of merits and barred by delay, was dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:22754 RP No. 518 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO. 518 OF 2024

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI NARAYANAPPA S/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 EYARS RA/T SRAJAMMANAHALLI DODDERI HOBLI MADHIGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 112.

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH.R.P, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶11

SRI MUDDA HANUMAKKA W/O HANUMAKKA SINCE DEAD BY LRS

¶12

Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M

¶13

Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

SRI NARAYANAPPA S/O CHANANPPA AGED ABOUT 64 EYARS R/AT SARJAMMANAHALLI DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 112.

¶15

…RESPONDENT

¶16

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAYBE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT. 28/10/1997 MADE IN RSA NO. 255/1997, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶17

¶18

NC: 2026:KHC:22754 RP No. 518 of 2024

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

This review petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1997 passed in RSA No.255/1997, whereby the said appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed by this Court.

¶24

Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the material on record.

¶25

Along with the review petition, petitioner has filed an application I.A.1/2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 9056 days in preferring the review petition. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Affidavit filed by the petitioner does not make out valid or sufficient ground for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay and as such, the long, unexplained and inordinate delay and latches of more than 27 years (9056 days) cannot be condoned at the instance of the review petitioner and consequently, I am of the view that there no

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:22754 RP No. 518 of 2024

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

merit in the application I.A.1/2024, which is accordingly hereby dismissed.

¶30

I have also given my anxious consideration to the submissions on merits made by the learned counsel for review petitioner and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat – Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020, (ii) S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan – (2023) SCC Online SC 185 (iii) S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy – Civil Appeal Nos.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and the recent judgment of

¶31

the Apex Court in the case of (iv) Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer –2023 SCC Online SC 1406, wherein it is held as under:-

¶32

16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:—

¶33

(i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶34

(ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so.

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:22754 RP No. 518 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

(iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review.

¶39

(iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.”

¶40

(v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.”

¶41

(vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided.

¶42

(vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions.

¶43

(viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review.

¶44

Upon consideration of the entire material on record, I do

¶45

not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, as held in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:22754 RP No. 518 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49