Review Petition No. 267 of 2022 · The High Court
Case Details
- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6920-DB RP No. 267 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T REVIEW PETITION NO.267 OF 2022 …PETITIONER BETWEEN:
Legal Reasoning
SRI V. SREENIVASAIAH S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA AGED 59 YEARS HOSAHALLI VILLAGE BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 560 109. (BY SRI VARUN GOWDA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA BY CHIEF SECRETARY VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE SECRETARIAT GOVT. OF KARNATAKA 5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6920-DB RP No. 267 of 2022 4. SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION 3RD FLOOR, PODIUM BLOCK VISVESWARAYA TOWER DR.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 5. THE PRESIDENT THE EX-SERVICEMEN HOUSE BUILDING CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. NO.652/B, 2ND FLOOR, DR.RAJKUMAR ROAD 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU - 560 010. 6. SRI B. R. LAKSHMIKANTH S/O. RANGASHETTY AGED MAJOR, REAL ESTATE AGENT M/S. BANGALORE ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR DOSHI INDUSTRIES 17, VISHWAS GANDHI COMPLEX GUNDOPANTH STREET BENGALURU - 560 002. 7. 8. 9. THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES IN KARNATAKA GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, NO.1 ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU - 560 052. THE COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY KUMARA PARK WEST BENGALURU - 560 020. INSPECTOR GENERAL OF REGISTRATION AND COMMISSIONER OF STAMPS GOVT. OF KARNATAKA, CAUVERY BHAVAN BENGALURU - 560 009. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6920-DB RP No. 267 of 2022 10. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN, K.G.ROAD BENGALURU - 560 009. (BY SRI HARISHA A. S., A.G.A., FOR R-1 TO R-4, R-7, R-9 & R-10; SRI K. R. KRISHNAMURTHY AND SRI B. N. PRAKASH, ADVOCATES FOR R-5; SRI N. KRISHNA, ADVOCATE FOR R-8) …RESPONDENTS * * * THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 OF THE CPC READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE C.P.C., 1908, PRAYING TO RECALL/REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 17/02/2020 PASSED IN WA NO.1517/2014 (LA-RES) FILED BY THE PETITIONER IN THE EXERCISE OF ITS REVIEW JURISDICTION IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND AWARD SUCH OTHER RELIEF/S THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT TO THE PETITIONERS IN THE ATTENDANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR and HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6920-DB RP No. 267 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This review petition is filed by the review petitioner seeking intervention of the order dated 17.02.2020 passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.No.1517/2014 (LR-RES) vide Annexure-A. This review petition is filed by urging various ground and various reliances of Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. Sri. Varun Gowda, learned counsel for the review petitioner is appearing through video conferencing. 3. Sri. Harisha A. S., learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 4, 7, 9 and 10, Sri. K. R. Krishnamurthy and B. N. Prakash, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.5 and Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 are present before the Court physically. 4. Sri. K. Krishna, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.8 submits that the issues in between the review petitioner and respondents went up to the Hon'ble Supreme - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6920-DB RP No. 267 of 2022 Court by filing a petition in Special Leave Petition (C) No.8792/2020, which came to be dismissed. 5. Keeping in view the said status in this matter, it is deemed appropriate to refer the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE TAX OFFICER (1) AND ANOTHER reported in (2024)2 SCC 362 wherein, in paragraph Nos.9, 10, 11, 14 and 15 of the said judgment, it is observed as under: 9. In the words of Krishna Iyer J., (as his Lordship then was) "a plea of review, unless the first judicial view is manifestly distorted, is like asking for the Moon. A forensic defeat cannot be avenged by an invitation to have a second look, hopeful of discovery of flaws and reversal of result. A review in the counsel's mentation cannot repair the verdict once given. So, the law laid down must rest in peace." 10. It is also well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6920-DB RP No. 267 of 2022 when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. "11. In PARSION DEVI Vs. SUMITRI DEVI, this Court made very pivotal observations: (SCC p.719, para9) 9. Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 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 the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be "reheard and corrected". A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be "an appeal in disguise". 14. In Arun Dev Upadhyaya V. Integrated Sales Service Ltd., reported in (2023) 8 SCC 11 : (2023) 4 SCC (Civ) 123 this Court reiterated the law and held that: (SCC p. 21, para 35) "35. From the above, it is evident that a power to review cannot be exercised as an appellate power and has to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. 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." - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:6920-DB RP No. 267 of 2022 15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. K. S. Puttaswamy (Aadhaar Review-5J.), held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of coordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review." 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid reliances rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is deemed appropriate that this review petition does not have any substantial question for consideration. Hence, the review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3