- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:3154 RP No. 611 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 23RD DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO.611 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. SRI. LAKSHMINARAYANA S/O SRI MUNISHAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, 2. SRI. VENKATESHAPPA, S/O SRI MUNISHAMAPPA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 3. SRI. KRISHNAPPA, S/O SRI MUNISWAMY, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, 4. SRI. MUNINARAYANAPPA, S/O SRI CHOKKAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, PETITIONER NOS. 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NERNAKALLU VILLAGE, KAIWARAHOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 128. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. KARTHIK V.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI MUNIVENKATAPPA S/O LATE SRI VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:3154 RP No. 611 of 2024 2. SRI CHOWDAPPA, S/O LATE SRI VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, 3. SRI KRISHNAPPA, S/O LATE SRI VENKATAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R1 TO R3 ARE R/O NERNAKALLU VILLAGE, KAIWARAHOBLI, CHINTAMANI TALUK, CHICKBALLAPUR DISTRICT - 563 128. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO., REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 11.01.2023 IN RSA NO.1026/2014 (DEC-INJ) FILED BEFORE THIS HONBLE COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The review petition is liable to be rejected on two counts. Firstly, the counsel who has argued the case in the appeal has not filed this review petition. In the light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in T.N. Electricity - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:3154 RP No. 611 of 2024 Board .vs. N. Raju Reddiar1, the present counsel has no locus to file this review petition. 2. Be that as it may, on examining the grounds urged in the review petition, this Court is of the view that the petitioner under the garb of review is insisting re- hearing, which is not permissible under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. 3. On examination of the grounds urged in the review petition, this Court is of the view that no error apparent is made out. It is a trite law that the Court cannot under the cover of review arrogate to itself the power to decide the case afresh. Parties who have suffered a decree cannot persuade to reassess the evidence. The Apex Court in the case of Ramu Sahu(Dead) Through LRs and others .vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others2 has clearly held that review proceedings has to be strictly confined to the ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. In the present review petition, 1 (1997) 9 SCC 736 2 2020 SCC Online SC 896 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:3154 RP No. 611 of 2024 the review petitioners have failed to point out mistake 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 warranting interference by invoking the power of Order XLVII of CPC. 4. For the foregoing reasons, the review petition is devoid of merits and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 81