- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7663-DB RP No. 445 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T REVIEW PETITION NO.445 OF 2024 BETWEEN: MR. M. C. VISHWANATHA AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS Aged about 50 years S/O. CHANDRASHEKARAIAH CHANNAPATNA TOWN RAMANAGARA DISTRICT. …PETITIONER (BY SRI VARDHAMAN V. GUNJAL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REVENUE SECRETARY MULTISTORIED BUILDING DR AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL CHANNAPATNA TALUK CHANNAPATNA - 562 159 BANGALORE DISTRICT BY ITS CHAIRMAN. 3. SRI SIDDEGOWDA MAJOR AGE NOT KNOWN S/O. APPAJIGOWDA AGRICULTURIST AND LAND LORD R/O. MANGALVARPET CHANNAPATNA - 562 159. Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7663-DB RP No. 445 of 2024 4. SMT. SAKKUBAI MAJOR, AGE NOT KNOWN D/O. LATE B. NAGAPPA R/O. NO38, IV CROSS MALLESHWARAM BENGALURU - 560 003. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI HARISHA A. S., A.G.A., FOR R-1 AND R-2) THE REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYS ON THESE GROUNDS AND AMONG OTHER GROUNDS THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT PASSED IN W.A. NOs. 1015, 1016, AND 4841 TO 4852/2001 DATED 7TH APRIL 2003, REQUIRES TO BE REVIEWED 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 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR) This review petition is filed by the review petitioner against the respondents seeking review of the order dated 07.04.2003, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.A.Nos.1015, 1016 and 4841 to 4852 of 2001. 2. Sri. Vardhaman V. Gunjal, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner is present before the Court physically. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7663-DB RP No. 445 of 2024 3. Neither the learned counsel for the review petitioner nor the review petitioner have cured the defects even after accommodating for three consecutive times. The same is indicated in the office note. 4. Sri. Harisha A. S., learned Addl. Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2 is present before the Court physically and submits that I.A.No.1/2024 is filed by the learned counsel for the review petitioner seeking condonation of delay of 7792 days in filing this review petition. 5. Learned Addl. Government Advocate vehemently opposes the said application. 6. It is deemed appropriate to refer to the order dated 28.06.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in RP.No.330/2022, which reads as under: “Registry has not raised an objection in the matter as the above Review Petition has been filed by a different counsel than the counsel who appeared in CRP.No.503/2019 which order is sought to be reviewed. In view of the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Electricity Board & Anr Vs. N. Raju Reddiar & Anr reported in (1997) 1 JTSC 486, the Review Petition cannot be filed by a counsel other than who had appeared in the matter which is sought to be reviewed. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7663-DB RP No. 445 of 2024 Registrar (Judicial) is directed to issue necessary instructions to the scrutiny officers in relation thereto and verify the same while scrutinizing the Review Petition.” 7. Keeping in view the order dated 28.06.2023, passed by the learned Single Judge in RP.No.330/2022, learned counsel for the review petitioner do not have any domain to urge any one of the grounds in this petition. 8. In the given peculiar facts and circumstances, it is deemed appropriate to refer to 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 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 - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7663-DB RP No. 445 of 2024 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 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 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". 15. It is very pertinent to note that recently the Constitution Bench in Beghar Foundation v. Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retired), held that even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of co-ordinate Bench or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review." 9. This review petition has been initiated by the review petitioner after long gap of more than 7792 days making use of the provision of Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay. Even the reasons stated in the affidavit - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:7663-DB RP No. 445 of 2024 accompanying the delay application, also does not have any substance to consider the same and keeping in view the provision of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, as well as ratio of the reliance referred in the matter, it is deemed appropriate that even on the merit, the review petition is hereby dismissed. 10. Consequence upon dismissal of this review petitioner, pending applications, if any, also stands dismissed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5