- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19448-DB RP No.590/2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF JUNE, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. K.S.MUDAGAL AND THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL REVIEW PETITION NO.590/2023 IN CCC No.521/2023 BETWEEN: H. V. SUNDARESHAN NO.1599, 5TH STAGE I PHASE, BEML HBCS LAYOUT R.R. NAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 098 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. H.V. SUNDARESHAN, PETITIONER (PARTY-IN-PERSON)) AND: MR. AMIT BANNERJEE AGED 60 YEARS S/O AJIT KUMAR BANNERJEE NO.39, KUSHAL LAYOUT KAGGADASAPURA C.V. RAMAN NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 098 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. NARASIMHA SWAMY N.S, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 08/09/2023 IN CCC NO.521/2023 PASSED BY HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU. THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. K.S.MUDAGAL AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL Digitally signed by K S RENUKAMBA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19448-DB RP No.590/2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MRS. K.S.MUDAGAL) Heard the review petitioner. 2. The petitioner filed Civil Contempt Petition No.521/2023 claiming that the order passed in W.P.No.43908/2019 is not complied. The Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on considering the compliance affidavit submitted by the other side and on hearing the parties, passed the order dated 08.09.2023 dropping the proceeding. The petitioner seeks review of the said order. 3. It appears that the petitioner questioned the accuracy of the calculation made by the respondent in the compliance affidavit. This Court held that while exercising contempt jurisdiction Court cannot undertake a critical examination of the compliance stand taken by the respondent/accused. Further reserved liberty to the complainant to work out his grievance, if any, before the Competent Authority. 4. The review petitioner, who is party-in-person submits that his arrears are paid, but similarly situated other - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19448-DB RP No.590/2023 employees have not been paid and the order of Supreme Court is suppressed in the Contempt Petition. In reply, Sri Narasimha Swamy N.S., learned counsel for respondent/accused submits that for the cause of others the petitioner cannot maintain a review petition. 5. Firstly, for non-payment to other employees, the petitioner cannot maintain a review petition and he has locus to do so. 6. Secondly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal and Ors. Vs. Respondent: State Tax Officer (1) and Ors.1 while referring to several other earlier judgments, in paragraph 16 of the judgment, has summarized the law regarding power of Court in a review petition. It is clearly held that an error which is not self evident, has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record and in the guise of review, the matter cannot be re-heard and corrected. 1 AIR 2023 SC 5636 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:19448-DB RP No.590/2023 7. As already noted, if there is any arithmetical error in calculating his dues, this Court in the order sought to be reviewed has reserved liberty to the petitioner to seek appropriate remedy. There are no grounds to consider this review petition. Hence I.A. No.1/2024 and Review Petition are rejected. In view of the above, pending IAs stood disposed of. Sd/- (K.S.MUDAGAL) JUDGE Sd/- (VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL) JUDGE PSJ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14 CT: BHK