SRI. CHAITANYA KUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE) v. GULBARGA 585 102

(BY SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. CHAITANYA KUMAR CHANDRIKI, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND: HARIKRISHNA V Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA SRI. VIVEKANAND S/O NARAYAN RAO DIXIT AGE: 36 YEARS, OCC: NIL, RESIDENT OF 10-2-16, SANGAMESHWAR COLONY, GULBARGA 585 102. …RESPONDENT THIS RP IS FILED U/SEC 114 R/W RULE 47 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONOURABLE COURT IN WRIT APPEAL NO.200093/2017 DATED 17.06.2024 CONSEQUENTLY BE PLEASED TO RESTORE THE WRIT APPEAL AND HEAR ON MERITS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 2 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:9653-DB RP No. 200077 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K) This review petition is directed against the judgment dated 27.06.2024 passed by this Court in W.A.No.200093/2017 (L-TER), wherein this Court dismissed the writ appeal as not maintainable in view of the law laid down by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Bangalore vs. Bharat Fritz Werner Karmika Sangha, Bangalore reported in AIR Online 2022 KAR 4396.

We have heard the learned Senior counsel Sri Dhyan Chinnappa for the review petitioner so also perused the entire materials on record.

It is the primary contention of the learned Senior counsel that while dismissing the writ appeal, this Court erroneously observed that, in the case of Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Bangalore, the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court held that, intra Court appeal is not maintainable against the order passed by the learned Single Judge being a - 3 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:9653-DB RP No. 200077 of 2024 challenge to the judicial order of the Labour Court. The said order passed in W.A.No.100230/2023 dated 12.04.2023 was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.32290/2023 dated 15.03.2024. As such, the writ appeal is not maintainable.

Learned Senior counsel, by relying on the judgment of Kunhayammed and Others vs. State of Kerala and another reported in (2000) 6 SCC 359 and the judgment passed by the co-ordinate Bench of this Court W.A.No.100006/2022 (GM-R/C) dated 27.08.2024, submits that, the intra Court appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 arises out of an order passed by the learned Single Judge being a challenge to the judicial order of the Labour Court.

We do not dispute the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above judgment. However, in the instant case, on perusal of the judgment passed by this Court in W.A.No.200093/2017, this Court relying on the judgment rendered in the case of Management of Bharat Fritz Werner Ltd. Bangalore (supra) taken up before the Hon'ble Apex Court in SLP (Civil) Diary No.32290/2023 and the Apex Court - 4 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:9653-DB RP No. 200077 of 2024 dismissed the same vide order dated 15.03.2024 by observing that: "We see no infirmity with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court in the impugned orders. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed. " As such, the contention raised by the learned Senior counsel does not hold good and is liable to be rejected.

The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officers reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406 by referring the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 25, held in paragraph 10 as under: "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 when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. " Further, in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court by referring Parsion Devi V. Sumitri Devi reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 held in paragraph 11 as under: “ …………9. Under Order 47 Rule 1CPC 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 - 5 - NC: 2024:KHC-K:9653-DB RP No. 200077 of 2024 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 1CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1CPCit 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”.”

Applying the above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this Case, we are of the view that, there is no error apparent on the face of the record/judgment passed by this Court in W.A.No.200093/2017 (L-TER).

Accordingly, the review petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petition, I.A.No.2/2024 does not survive for consideration and the same is disposed of. Sd/- (ASHOK S. KINAGI) JUDGE Sd/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE VM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 6