- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:10619 RP No. 18 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH REVIEW PETITION NO. 18 OF 2020 IN R.F.A.No.1691 OF 2013 (DEC-POS) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. A. KRISHNA AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS S/O LATE ABBAYYAPPA RESIDING IN A PORTION OF PROPERTY NO.39 KODIHALLI MAIN ROAD HAL II STAGE POST BENGALURU-560038. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.K.VASANTH, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SURESH MOHAN SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR SMT. SHANTHA AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS W/O LATE SURESH MOHAN R/AT NO.6, GANDHI ROAD GUDIYATTAM-632 602 NADUPETTAI, VELLORE TAMILNADU. 2. MISS. SADANA MOHAN AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS D/O MOHAN P.B. AND GOWRAMMA. Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:10619 RP No. 18 of 2020 3. SMT. SANJU GANGULY AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O ASHWIN GANGULY D/O MOHAN P.B. AND GOWRAMMA 4. SRI. MOHAN SUDESH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS S/O MOHAN P.B. AND GOWRAMMA THE RESPONDENT NOS.2 TO 4 ARE R/AT NO.76/3, 2ND CROSS 80 FT. ROAD, MICHAEL PALYA THIPPASANDRA POST BENGALURU-560 075. 5. SMT. RATHNAMMA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS W/O LATE A. DASAPPA RESIDING IN A PORTION OF PROPERTY NO.39, KODIHALLI MAIN ROAD HAL II STAGE POST BENGALURU-560 038. 6. SRI. D. MAHENDRA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS S/O LATE A. DASAPPA RESIDING IN A PORTION OF PROPERTY NO.39 KODIHALLI MAIN ROAD HAL II STAGE POST BENGALURU-560 038. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VARDHAMAN V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4; SRI. B.L. NANDA KUMAR, ADVOCATE FOR R6 NOTICE TO R5 IS DISPENSED WITH VIDE ORDER DATED 08.11.2024) - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:10619 RP No. 18 of 2020 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO PASS AN ORDER TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 11.12.2019 IN R.F.A.NO.1691/2013 (DEC- POS). THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for review petitioner and respective counsel for the respondents. 2. This review petition is filed against the judgment passed by this Court in R.F.A.No.1691/2013 dated 11.12.2019. The main ground urged in the review petition is that respondent No.1 specifically denies with regard to execution of the Will dated 15.09.1989 at paragraph No.4 of the written statement which should be taken as a disputed statement and to raise an issue in that regard. It is also contended that there is no dispute with regard to Ex.D1 and Ex.P3 is seriously disputed by specifically denying the same at paragraph No.4 of the written statement filed by first defendant in O.S.No.2932/2005, which amounts to challenging the Will i.e., Ex.P3. Learned counsel also would vehemently contend that - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:10619 RP No. 18 of 2020 Ex.D6 is cumulative record of first defendant which shows that he was residing in the schedule property from the year 1962. Ex.D7 is the vehicle registration certification which shows that first defendant was residing in the schedule premises as on 20.04.1983 which shows says that first defendant has been residing in the schedule premises right from 1962 till date and as such, there is no question of trespassing to the schedule property by the first defendant on 26.12.2004. Learned counsel further contends that Ex.D1 is dated 09.08.1979 and Ex.P3 is dated 15.09.1989 and said Abbaiah died on 03.10.1989 and as such, the plaintiffs ought to have filed suit for declaration and recovery of possession within 12 years at least from the date i.e., on or before 03.10.2001. Hence, suit filed by the plaintiffs in the year 2005 is hopelessly barred by limitation and this Court has to review the judgment, since the finding is erroneous. 3. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 to 4 would contend that scope of review is very limited and submit that already possession was taken and this judgment was passed in 2019 and review petition is filed in 2020 and already the respondents are enjoying the property, - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:10619 RP No. 18 of 2020 consequent upon the decree passed by the Trial Court and confirmation made by this Court. 4. In support of his argument, learned counsel relied upon the judgment of this Apex Court reported in 2013 (8) SCC 320 in the case of KAMLESH VERMA VS. MAYAWATI AND OTHERS and brought to notice of this Court paragraph No.20, wherein the Apex Court has discussed summary of proceedings and scope and ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 CPC in point No.20.1 as to when the review will be maintainable i.e., (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 record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. Learned counsel referring this principle laid down in the judgment would contend that no such circumstance is warranted in the case on hand. In point No.20.2, the Apex Court has held with regard to 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; (ix) - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:10619 RP No. 18 of 2020 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 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. Learned counsel referring this principle would contend that the grounds urged in the review petition is nothing but rehearing the appeal by exercising the review jurisdiction. Hence, the grounds which have been urged in the review does not constitute the summary of principles to invoke review jurisdiction. 5. The counsel also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 in the case of PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS VS. SUMITRI DEVI AND - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:10619 RP No. 18 of 2020 OTHERS and brought to notice of this Court paragraph Nos.9 and 10, wherein the Apex Court has held that under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, a judgment may be open to review interalia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of 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”. There is a clear distinction between an erroneous decision to be and an error apparent on the face of record. While the first can be corrected by the higher forum, the latter only can be corrected by exercise of the review jurisdiction. Hence, contend that question of considering the review petition does not arise, since this Court in detail discussed the same and answered the points formulated by the Court. Therefore, it does not require interference of this Court by entertaining the review. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and respective counsel for the respondents and also - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:10619 RP No. 18 of 2020 considering the principles laid in the judgment referred (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4, the points that would arise for consideration of this Court are: (1) Whether this Court can review the judgment passed by this Court and whether ground has been made out to review the judgment passed by this Court in R.F.A.No.1691/2013? (2) What order? Point No.(1) 7. (2) What order? Point No.(1) 7. Having considered the grounds which have been urged in the review petition as well as submission of learned counsel for the review petitioner and respective counsel for the respondents, this Court having taken note of the material on record, in paragraph No.35 having taken note of the evidence of P.W.1 and D.W.1 and also particularly document of Ex.D1 and Ex.P3 discussed the same in detail and comes to the conclusion in paragraph No.36 that there is no doubt that law mandates to examine one of the attesting witnesses, but in the case on hand, it is to be noted that the defendant No.1 along with Narayanappa had filed the suit earlier and in the said suit, the defendants themselves have made reference to Ex.P3. In the suit O.S.No.3414/1997, the first defendant admitted that - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:10619 RP No. 18 of 2020 he acquired portion of the property in Sy.No.49 under Will and during the course of evidence in the said suit, he produced the certified copy of the Will, which is also marked at Ex.P3 in that suit. Hence, the first defendant admitted the very execution of the Will and also acted upon the same and he has also relied upon the very same document in the suit filed by him. The other beneficiaries have also claimed that the Will-Ex.P3 was executed and reasoned order was passed. So also in paragraph No.37, discussed with regard to palu patti marked as Ex.D1 and also taken note that subsequently, the vendor had executed the Will and detailed order has been passed. Having reanalyzed the material on record and also the judgments relied upon by the respective counsel, this Court comes to the conclusion that the material on record is very clear that where the Will is admitted or denied, it is bounden duty of the attester of the Will and the said contention cannot be accepted, since first defendant accepted the very same document. 8. Having considered the factual aspects, this Court given the reasoning while answering point Nos.1 to 3 and the very same grounds cannot be urged and there is a force in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents and as - 10 - NC: 2025:KHC:10619 RP No. 18 of 2020 per the judgments which have been relied upon by learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 4 with regard to scope and ambit of review, the Apex Court categorically held that, unless there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of record, the Court cannot exercise the review jurisdiction and this Court considered the material on record, while considering the evidence. The Apex Court also in the judgment in KAMLESH VERMA’s case referred (supra) has categorically held in 20.2 of the judgment when the review will not be maintainable and so also in the judgment in PARSION DEVI’s case in paragraph Nos.9 and 10, the Apex Court in detail discussed with regard to scope and ambit of the review and categorically held that a judgment may be open to review interalia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of 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”. When this Court has discussed in detail the evidence, particularly the - 11 - NC: 2025:KHC:10619 RP No. 18 of 2020 document of Ex.D1 and Ex.P3 and with regard to the appreciation of the evidence is concerned, this Court cannot sit and decide the same in view of the grounds urged and this Court has considered the material available on record while disposing the appeal on merits. Hence, I do not find any ground to consider the review petition as contended by learned counsel for the review petitioner and no scope to review the judgment passed by this Court, in view of the principles held in the judgment of Apex Court as there is no error as mentioned in the judgment. Therefore, I answer point No.(1) as ‘negative’. Point No.(2) 9. In view of the discussion made above, I pass the following: ORDER The review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 56