MR. MANU N. v. MR. V.PRASAD & Ors.

MR. MANU N., S/O M.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS RESIDING AT NO. 151/10 RUSTUMJI VILLAS, WHITEFIELD BENGALURU - 560 066. (BY SRI PIYUSH KUMAR JAIN D., ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:

1. MR. V.PRASAD Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka S/O LATE Y.VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS RESIDING AT GIDDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 129.

2. MS. DIVYA D/O SRI V.PRASAD AGED ABOUT 22 YEARS RESIDING AT GIDDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 129. - 2 - NC: 2026:KHC:5473 RP No. 26 of 2026 HC-KAR

3. MS. GNANA D/O SRI V.PRASAD AGED ABOUT 20 YEARS RESIDING AT GIDDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 129.

4. MASTER HEMADRI S/O SRI V.PRASAD AGED ABOUT 10 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY HIS NATURAL GUARDIAN MR. V.PRASAD RESIDING AT GIDDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 562 129.

5. SMT. MANJULA D/O LATE SRI Y.VENKATAPPA W/O MUNIRAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT GIDDAPPANAHALLI VILLAGE SULIBELE HOBLI, HOSKOTE TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU – 562 129.

6. SMT. VARALAKSHMI D/O LATE SRI Y.VENKATAPPA W/O CHINNA KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS RESIDING AT SULIBELE VILLAGE AND POST HOSKOTE TALUK - 3 - NC: 2026:KHC:5473 RP No. 26 of 2026 HC-KAR BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU – 562 129.

7. SMT. VIJAYAMMA D/O LATE SRI Y.VENKATAPPA W/O LAKSHMINARAYANA AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS RESIDING AT ARODI VILLAGE SASALU HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 067. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SEENAPPA K., ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION.114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE COMMON ORDER DATED DECEMBER 15, 2025 PASSED IN WP NO.21514 OF 2025 AND WP NO.25227 OF 2025 (IMPUGNED ORDER) VIDE ANNEXURE – A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The petitioner is before this Court for the third time again on the score that the order passed by the concerned Court has some error in it, which is apparent on the face of the record. - 4 - NC: 2026:KHC:5473 RP No. 26 of 2026 HC-KAR

2. Heard Sri Piyush Kumar Jain D., learned counsel for petitioner and Sri Seenappa K., learned counsel respondents.

3. After hearing both the parties, this Court was of the opinion that too, to give a quietus to the dispute with regard to who should value the property or who should measure the property, the Tahsildar and the Assistant Director of Land Records were jointly appointed as the Court Commissioners. The concerned Court on the said order has now allowed the application, directing both of them to do the commission work and report to the concerned Court.

4. The apprehension of the learned counsel for the petitioner for which the review petition has sprung is that, the respondents should not take the objection that Tahsildar is not technically qualified to evaluate the property.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that objection based on this order will not be taken, but in the cross-examination, he may be given liberty to put questions. - 5 - NC: 2026:KHC:5473 RP No. 26 of 2026 HC-KAR Putting questions cannot be stalled by this Court as it is the right of the parties.

6. The submission of Sri Seenappa K., learned counsel for the respondents is placed on record that he will not take objection based upon the order passed by this Court.

7. With the afore-made observations, the petition stands disposed, failing which, the entertainment of a review petition will be hearing the matter all over again, which cannot be in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati1, wherein, the Apex Court has held as follows: "20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:

20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (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; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. 1 (2013) 8 SCC 320 - 6 - NC: 2026:KHC:5473 RP No. 26 of 2026 HC-KAR 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]

20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (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. (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. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (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. - 7 - NC: 2026:KHC:5473 RP No. 26 of 2026 HC-KAR (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.

21. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider the claim of the petitioner and find out whether a case has been made out for interference exercising review jurisdiction.” (emphasis supplied) A review in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court cannot be a re-hearing of the matter, which cannot be entertained for the aforesaid reasons. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 51/CT:SS