- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17775 RP No. 100061 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA REVIEW PETITION NO. 100061 OF 2018 (-) BETWEEN: SHRI. RAJENDRA GANAPATI HEGDE AGE: 58, OCC: AGRICULTURE AND ADVOCATE, R/O: TADDALSE, PO: HUNASEKOPPA, TQ: SIRSI-581403. DIST: UTTARA KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAJENDRA G. HEGDE, PARTY IN PERSON) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE, M.S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE CHAIRMAN THE KARNATAKA APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, M S BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001. 3. THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, AT:SARASWATI SADAN, HABBUWADA ROAD, KARWAR-581306. 4. TOTAGARS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES AT:NEW MARKET YARD, SIRSI 581402 RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.12 14:34:12 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17775 RP No. 100061 of 2018 GANAPATI SUBRAY HEDGE BY(D/H) SHARADA GANAPATI HEGDE BY (D/H) 5. SUBRAY GANAPATI HEGDE A/A 73, OCC:AGRIL., R/O KATAMANE, PO: EKKAMBI, TQ: SIRSI-581401 6. NARASIMHA GANAPATI HEGDE (SON) A/A 71, OCC:AGRI, R/O. JANMANE, PO:HUNASEKOPPA, TQ:SIRSI-581403 7. KAVERI SUBRAY HEGDE (DAUGHTER) R/O. VATAGAR, PO:RAGIHOSALLI, TQ:SIRSI 581401 A/A 82, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 8. NETRAVATI SUBRAY BHAT (DAUGHTER) R/O: AT AND PO: PUTTANAMANE, TQ: SIRSI, A/A 80, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. 9. GAURI KOM GANAPATI HEGDE (DAUGHTER) R/O: TATTIKAI, PO: SARKULI, TQ: SIRSI 581401 A/A 65, OCC: HOUSEHOLD. GIRIJA MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE (DAUGHTER BY (D/H) 10. GANAPATI MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE R/O. HIREPETH, HUBLI,-580020 A/A 57, OCC:BUSINESS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17775 RP No. 100061 of 2018 11. DATTATRAYA MAHABALESHWAR HEGDE R/O. HIREPETH, HUBLI- 580020 A/A 55, OCC:BUSINESS. 12. CHAYA SURESH PATRE R/O: HIREPETH, HUBLI-580020 A/A 50, OCC:HOUSEHOLD. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T. HANUMAREDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R3) REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE SAID REVIEW PETITION AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED ON 27-06- 2018 IN THE WRIT PETITION NO. 102242/2018, FOR THE ABOVE SAID REASONS AND RESTORE THE SAID WRIT PETITION NO. 102242/2018 ON THE FILE OF THIS COURT AND HEAR THE SAID WRIT PETITION ON MERITS AND GRANT THE SOUGHT RELIEFS IN THE SAID WRIT PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner in person has preferred the subject review petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17775 RP No. 100061 of 2018 2. On 26.07.2018 seeking review of an order passed by the Coordinate Bench on 27.06.2018, the Co-ordinate Bench had passed the following order: “Learned AGA submits that this writ petition has become infructuous, as the impugned order passed in Appeal No.195/2015 would not require a consideration at the hands of this Court, as the said appeal itself has been disposed of by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal. That in fact the petitioner herein has succeeded in the appeal, as the order passed in the dispute No.DRN/F/DDS/1674/03- 04 dated 24.06.2015 which was impugned by the petitioner herein before the Tribunal has been set aside by the Tribunal. 2. Learned AGA further submits on instructions that the execution petition filed against the petitioner has also been closed. 3. Submission is placed on record. 4. In response, the petitioner who is appearing as party in person submits that he has not received full relief at the hands of the Tribunal. 5. In the circumstances, this writ petition would not call for any further consideration at this stage, as what is impugned herein is interim order dated 06.03.2018 passed by the Tribunal in Appeal No.195/2015, whereas the main appeal itself has been disposed off by the Tribunal. However, if the petitioner is aggrieved by the final judgment passed by the Tribunal on 09.04.2018, he is at liberty to avail the remedy that is available to him in accordance with law. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, I.A. No.3/2018 would not require further consideration and the same is also disposed off.” 3. The review petition is preferred on the score that the counsel for the State has misled the Court to believing that the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17775 RP No. 100061 of 2018 appeal had been disposed and therefore the execution proceedings also comes to be disposed. The appeal had been dismissed on 09.04.2018. Therefore, there is no question of the State misleading the Court for passing an order on the strength of the appeal being dismissed which was noticed by the Coordinate bench the execution also comes to be closed on 07.07.2018. 4. It was open to the petitioner to challenge the same in accordance with law. The challenge is not yet made and since 06.02.2019 there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner in person. Entertaining the subject review petition at this juncture, on the grounds so made would amount to rehearing the matter in appeal over the order of the Coordinate Bench, which is impermissible in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of KAMLESH VERMA v. MAYAWATI1,which reads as follows: “20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; 1 (2013) 8 SCC 320 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17775 RP No. 100061 of 2018 (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275] 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” (Emphasis supplied) - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17775 RP No. 100061 of 2018 5. In view of the aforesaid observations, the review petition lacking in merit stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RHR/CT CNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13