- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:7666-DB RP No. 427 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.427 OF 2024 BETWEEN: THIMMARASAPPA S/O. LATE VENKATAPPA AGED ABOUT 86 YEARS R/O. DASEGOWDANAPALYA SOMAPURA DAKHALE VIDHYAPEETA POST, KENGERI HOBLI BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU - 60. …PETITIONER (BY SRI S. B. HALLI, ADVOCATE FOR, SRI RAJAGOPALA NAIDU, ADVOCATE) AND: THE COMMISSIONER BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMAR PARK WEST BENGALURU - 20. …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULES 1, R/W SECTION 114 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER AND MODIFY THE DIRECTIONS FORMULATED MORE PARTICULARLY DIRECTION NO IV AND VI IN WRIT APPEAL NO 8006-8010/2010 DATED 27/2/2013 AND ETC. THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:7666-DB RP No. 427 of 2024 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 has been filed by the review petitioner seeking review of the order and modify the direction formulated in Writ Appeal No.8006-8010/2010 (BDA) dated 27.02.2013, passed by this Court vide Annexure-A and further seeks to direct the respondent - BDA or allottees not to interfere with the peaceful possession and enjoyment of the land in dispute in Sy. No.18/1 to an extent of 1A-15 1/2 G situated at Somapura Village Kengeri Hobli Banglore south Taluka. He further seeks to direct the trial Court to dispose of O.S.No.315/2020 as early as possible, within period of six months and to consider the grounds urged in this appeal. 2. Sri. S. B. Halli, representing Sri. Rajagopal Naidu, learned counsel appearing for the review petitioner is present before the Court physically. 3. Keeping in view the submission made by learned counsel for the review petitioner and grounds urged in this - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:7666-DB RP No. 427 of 2024 review petition, it is deemed appropriate to refer to paragraph Nos.9, 10, 11 and 15 of the judgment of the 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 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 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:7666-DB RP No. 427 of 2024 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. 4. Keeping in view the aforesaid observations made in the judgement, even on merits, inclusive of grounds and also keeping in view the Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, it is deemed appropriate that this review petition does not survive for consideration. 5. Learned counsel for the review petitioner seeks for grant of liberty. 6. Keeping in view the issues between the review petitioner and respondent in this matter and submission made by learned counsel for the review petitioner, it is deemed appropriate that liberty be granted as sought for. To that effect, learned counsel for the review petitioner is directed to file a memo in writing. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:7666-DB RP No. 427 of 2024 7. Consequence upon dismissal of this appeal, any pending applications also stand dismissed. 8. Hence, the review petition is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (K.SOMASHEKAR) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE PHM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4