- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:6567-DB RP No. 470 of 2016 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T REVIEW PETITION NO. 470 OF 2016 BETWEEN: SRI ANNAYAPPA S/O LATE AYYAPPA AGED ABOUT 93 YEARS OCCUPN: AGRICUTLURE R/AT ANNAYAPPA GARDEN JAKKASANDRA VILLAGE, BEGUR HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. D GANGADHARA - ADVOCATE) AND: 1. LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O LATE AYYAPPA (DIED DURING THE PEDENCY OF THE WRIT APPEAL NO. 3965/2009 LRS ALREADY BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE ABOVE WRIT APPEAL) SMT. TULASAMMA W/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS 2. SMT. VAJRAMMA W/O SRINIVAS AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O GANESH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:6567-DB RP No. 470 of 2016 4. SRI YELLAPPA S/O LATE MUNIVENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS 5. SMT. MUNIRATHNA M W/O VENU AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1 TO 5 ARE R/AT NO. 188, 1ST BLOCK 1ST MAIN ROAD, SARJAPURA ROAD BANGALORE - 560 074. 6. SMT. MANJULA M W/O NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 7. SMT. PADMA M W/O MUNILAKSHMAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS RESPONDENTS 6 & 7 ARE R/AT NO. 283, HEBAGODI MUNESHWARANGAR BANGALORE - 560 100. 8. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE DISTRICT TALUK OFFICE COMPOUND K.G.ROAD BANGALORE - 560 009. 9. SRI BASAVANNA DEVARU DEITY REPRESENTED BY THE THASILDAR/ MUZRAI OFFICER BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK K.G.ROAD, BANGALORE - 560 009. 10. THE GOPALASWAMY DEITY REP. BY SRI RANGACHARI (INAMDAR) SRI. RANGACHARI (INAMDAR) S/O SRINIVASACHAR AGED MAJOR R/AT AGARA VILLAGE BEGUR HOBLI - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:6567-DB RP No. 470 of 2016 BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK BANGALORE. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIJETHA R NAIK – ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 7; SRI. B RAVINDRANATH – AGA FOR RESPONDENTS NO.8 TO 10 (VIDE COURT ORDER DATED 13.02.2025, ACCEPTS NOTICE IN RESPECT OF RESPONDENTS NO.9 & 10)) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYNG TO REVIEW AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.07.2023 PASED BY THIS COURT IN W.A.NO.3965/2009(LR). 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 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This review petition is initiated by the petitioner seeking to review the order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.No.3965/2009 (LR) dated 09.07.2023 and also to set- aside the said order. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:6567-DB RP No. 470 of 2016 2. Learned counsel Sri Nandeesh for the petitioner is present before the Court physically and represents Sri D.Gangadhar who is on record. 3. Learned counsel Sri Vijetha R.Naik for respondent Nos.1 to 7 is present before the Court physically inclusive of learned AGA for respondent Nos. 8 to 10. 4. Counsel for respondent Nos.1 to 7 has facilitated the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Curative Pet(C) No.272/2016 in R.P.(C) No.175/2016 in SLP (C) No.34862/2013 dated 26.07.2016 wherein it is observed that “we have gone through the Curative Petition and the relevant documents. In our opinion, no case is made out within the parameters indicated in the decision of this Court in Rupa Ashok Hurra vs. Ashok Hurra and another, reported in 2002 (4) SCC 388. Hence, the Curative Petition is dismissed.” 5. However, keeping in view the submission made by the counsel for the parties and also keeping in view Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is relevant to refer the reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of SANJAY KUMAR AGARWAL vs. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:6567-DB RP No. 470 of 2016 STATE TAX OFFICER ((2023) SCC ONLINE 1406) wherein it is held 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. “11. In PARSION DEVI AND OTHERS VS. SUMITRI DEVI AND OTHERS ((1997) 8 SCC 715)), this Court made very pivotal observations: - “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.” - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:6567-DB RP No. 470 of 2016 6. Keeping in view the aforesaid reliance of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, this review petition does not survive for consideration. Consequently, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE DKB