- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3213 RP No. 57 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO. 57 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MRS RITA W/O SUNDAR, SINCE DIED BY HER LR SRI SUNDER, SINCE DIED BY HIS LR, MR. PRABHU S. S/O LATE SUNDER, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, RESIDING AT PROTON OF NO.17, REST HOUSE ROAD, BANGALORE - 560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. P D SURANA, ADVOCATE) AND: MRS RASHMI MATHUR, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY, HOLDER MR ABDUL GAFFAR, S/O LATE MR KHAN SAHIB ABDUL GANI, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO. 87, M G ROAD, BANGALORE 560001. …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER MADE BY THIS HON’BLE COURT DATED 18.11.2020 IN H.R.R.P.NO.37/2017, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by LEELAVATHI S R Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3213 RP No. 57 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This review petition is directed against the impugned order dated 18.11.2020 passed in HRRP No.37/2017, whereby the said petition preferred by the petitioners was allowed of by this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioners and perused the material on record. 3. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the material on record including the impugned order in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat – Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020, (ii) S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan – (2023) SCC Online SC 185 (iii) S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy – Civil Appeal Nos.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (iv) Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer –2023 SCC Online SC 1406, wherein it is held as under:- 16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:— - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3213 RP No. 57 of 2024 (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) 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. (iii) 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 record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.” (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) 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. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3213 RP No. 57 of 2024 4. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, as held in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court. 5. In view of the foregoing reasons, the review petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE MDS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 143