(BY SRI.VISH - PARTY-IN-PERSON) v. BENGALURU

2. We have heard the petitioner - party-in-person - Sri Vish.

3. Before going into the merits of petition, we intimated petitioner that to argue the matter by himself, he has to first approach the 'Party-in-Person Committee' and obtain a certificate the said Committee as contemplated under Rule-8 of the High Court of Karnataka (Conduct of Proceedings by Party-in-person) Rules, 2018. - 3 This Court also enquired the petitioner as to whether any legal assistance is required to be provided from the High Court Legal Services Committee to help and assist him in conducting this case.

3.1 Petitioner refused to go before the 'Party-in- Person Committee' by contending that he does not require to obtain any certificate or permission from the 'Party-in- Person Committee' as the Hon'ble Apex Court in several judgments has held that a party can argue the case by himself and he need not go before the Committee to obtain any such certificate.

3.2 To the 2nd question of this Court as to whether any legal assistance is required to be provided from the High Court Legal Services Committee to help and assist him in conducting this case, petitioner refused to take any assistance from the said Committee by contending that he is very well conversant with the law by himself and he would not require any legal assistance, rather it is the said Committee, which may require his assistance. - 4

4. At this stage, it is relevant to extract Rule-8 of the High Court of Karnataka (Conduct of Proceedings by Party- in-person) Rules 2018, which reads as under: "8. Issue of certificate by Party-in-Person Committee: a) The Party-in-Person Committee scrutinize the matter/proceedings filed by party-in-person so as to ensure that the party-in-person has complied with requirements of the High Court of Karnataka Act and Rules, 1959 and the Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 and that the party-in- person has not made any objectionable averments/ allegations and has not used and undertakes not to use or speak unparliamentary language in the proceedings and the matter of like nature, in the Court or Office. b) The Party-in-Person Committee shall interact with the party-in-person and give opinion by way of office report whether party-in-person will be able to give necessary assistance to the Court for disposal of the matter or any Advocate may be appointed as Amicus Curiae and party-in-person shall furnish Undertaking in the prescribed proforma annexed to these Rules as Annexure. - 5 c) If the Party-in-Person Committee is of the opinion the party-in-person is not competent to appear in-person as mentioned above and the Certificate is not issued as per the Rules referred above, the Party-in-Person Committee may refer the Party-in-Person to the High Court Legal Services Committee for offering legal services. d) If the Party-in-Person is not entitled under law to get assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee, he/she may be asked to appoint a lawyer to represent his/her case; e) In the event, it is certified that the party-in- person is competent to assist the Court in- person, the party-in-person shall give an Undertaking in Form-B that he/she shall maintain decorum of the Court and shall not use or express objectionable and un- parliamentary language or behaviour during the course of hearing in the Court or in the Court premises or in the further pleadings and shall further undertake that if he/she fails to undertaking, contempt proceedings may be initiated against him/her and appropriate costs or security deposit condition may be imposed on him/her and he/she shall not be allowed to appear in any case as party-in-person for such period as the - 6 Court may deem fit. The Court may also dismiss the proceedings initiated by such Party-in-Person on any of such ill-behaviour of the Party-in-Person. f) In case a party, who wishes to defend his matter/proceedings in person as respondent/ opponent, the Court may direct such party to appear before the above Party-in-Person Committee and it shall ensure, certify and direct him to follow the procedures prescribed in the above referred Rules. g) It is only when such application of Party-in- Person upon Certificate for appearance given by the Party-in-Person Committee is allowed by the Court, the Party-in-Person shall be permitted to appear, argue the case in- person subject to such further orders which the Court may pass at any stage of such proceedings."

5. In view of the above, the petitioner having not obtained the permission 'Party-in-Person Committee as contemplated under Rule-8 of the High Court of Karnataka (Conduct of Proceedings by Party-in-person) Rules 2018, we are of the opinion that the petitioner cannot be permitted to appear as party-in-person. - 7

6. The Registry has raised following 16 objections in this petition.

1. Typed copy of index to be produced.

2. Typed copy of memorandum of Review Petition to be produced.

3. The Name of Hon'ble Judges to be removed from memorandum of petition.

4. Prayer para to be made specific.

5. Review to be sought in prayer para and case number and date to be mentioned correctly in prayer para.

6. Typed copy of manuscript of Annexure-D to be produced and wherever necessary.

7. Clear copy of Annexure-G to be produced.

8. I.A for CD to be filed and delay of 18 days to be mentioned.

9. Certified copy of order dated 26/11/2019 in WA.No.3956/2019 to be produced.

10. Synopsis to be produced.

11. Highlighter pen markings to be removed from annexures, wherever necessary.

12. Party-in-person to be mentioned at the end of index column and wherever necessary.

13. Typed copy of memorandum of I.A.No.1/2020 to be produced.

14. Prayer para to be made specific in I.A.No.1/2020. - 8

15. Annexures to be marked correctly in IA No.1/2020.

16. Provision of to be mentioned on I.A.No.1/2020.

7. On perusal of the office note, it is seen that objections raised by the Registry have not been complied. Inspite of technical objections, we have taken up the matter for consideration.

8. Having made efforts to see that some assistance could be rendered through the High Court Legal Services Committee and the same having been refused, we decided to go through the papers to understand the grievance of the petitioner.

9. This petition is filed to review the judgment dated 26th November 2019 passed in Writ Appeal No.3956 of 2019 (GM-RES), which reads as under: "The only substantive prayer made by the appellant appearing in person in this appeal reads thus; "The Hon'ble Justices are requested to kindly direct that none of the appellant's - 9 cases be posted before Judges/Justices of local origin of Karnataka (linguistic)".

2. Thus, from the prayer, it is very clear that the appellant is not seeking to challenge any order passed by any single Judge of this Court. Hence, this appeal is not maintainable and is dismissed as not maintainable."

10. After having gone through the case papers, we enquired with petitioner once again as to what is his grievance. He submits that none of his cases should be posted or listed before the Judges/Justices of local origin of Karnataka (linguistic) and the Judges from outside the State of Karnataka should only hear his cases. It is the contention of the petitioner - party-in-person that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and hence the judgment passed by this Court in Writ Appeal requires to be reviewed.

11. The point that arises for consideration in the present review petition is: "Whether the petitioner has made out any valid ground for review of the judgment dated 26th November 2019 passed in Writ Appeal No.3956 of 2019 (GM-RES) ?" - 10

12. It is well settled that the first and foremost requirement while entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, must suffer from an error apparent on the face of the record and permitting such an order to stand would lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. An error, which is not self evident and has to be detected by the process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the Court to exercise the power of review. Re agitating the points already decided is impermissible in review proceedings. An error contemplated under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for permissibility of review must be such that it is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched.

13. At this stage, it is relevant to extract the provisions of Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as under: - 11 "1. Application for review of judgment. (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes,and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record, or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order."

14. In the case of Kamlesh Verma -vs- Mayawati and others reported in (2013)8 SCC 320 while considering the scope and ambit of Order - XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, following principles are laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court: "20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, - 12 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. 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. - 13 (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. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."

15. The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in several judgments has clearly held that the petitioner cannot seek reconsideration or review of the judgment rendered by the Court without there being any new discovery or new material which was not placed before the Court earlier and suddenly unearthed by the petitioner. It is fundamental rule - 14 of law that the court's jurisdiction of review is very narrow and circumspect. It is needless to state that it is not the same as that of an appeal where the petitioner can address or challenge a judgment on merits. In a review petition, the petitioner would have to make out that there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record and the same has to be evidenced per se from the judgment rendered or from the records.

16. Having gone through the records by ourselves to see whether some relief could be granted, we do not find any error apparent on the face of record or for that matter any sufficient reason to show any indulgence by way of review of the judgment dated 26th November 2019 passed in Writ Appeal No.3956 of 2019.

17. The Petition is devoid of merits. No reason is made out by the petitioner to review the judgment dated 26th November 2019 rendered by this Court in Writ Appeal No.3956 of 2019 (GM-RES), as we do not find any error apparent on the face of record. - i) ii) 15

18. In view of the above, we pass the following: O R D E R The Review Petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of this review petition, pending applications, if any would not survive for consideration and the same pale insignificance. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE GSS*