- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38664 RP No. 275 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS REVIEW PETITION NO. 275 OF 2025 BETWEEN: DR. M.P. SOMAPRASAD S/O. SRI. M.K.PRABHAKARAN, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.12, MANTRI ALTIUS, NO.17, RAJ BHAVAN ROAD, BANGALORE 560051 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. PRABHULING K. NAVADAGE, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI. SANJAY NAIR, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S. SUSHRUTHA VISHRANTHI DHAMA PVT. LTD., A COMPAY REGISTERED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956, REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.202, RASHTREEYA VIDYALAYA ROAD, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE - 560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR ALSO AT SY.NO.18/4, UTTARAHALLI, MANAVARTHE KAVAL, THALAGHATTAPURA, UTTARAHALLI HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK, BANGALORE DISTRICT - 560 061. 2. MR. RINNY EAPEN, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38664 RP No. 275 of 2025 S/O. LATE P.K.EAPEN, AGED ABOUT 83 YEARS, NO.570, 3RD BLOCK, KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE - 560 034. 3. MR. P.G.ALEXANDER S/O. LATE MR. GEORGE AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS NO.16, SRINIDHI TEMPLE STREET, CHUNCHANAGHATTA, DODDAKALLASANDRA POST, BANGALORE - 560 062. 4. DR. R.SUBBARAO, S/O. DR. S.V.RAMARAO, AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS, NO.1631/, DHATREE, 32ND CROSS, BSK 2ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560070. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY BY ITS COMMISSIONER, KUMARA PARK WEST, BENGALURU - 560 070. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. NALINA MAYIGOWDA, SR. COUNSEL FOR SMT. ANUSHA B. REDDY, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION.114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2025 PASSED IN CRP 318/2024 AND DISMISS THE SAID CIVIL REVISION PETITION 318/2024 AND TO PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS, AS MAY BE NECESSARY IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38664 RP No. 275 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER This is a review petition filed under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure seeking review of the Order dated 20.06.2025 in Civil Revision Petition No.318/2024. 2. For the sake of convenience, the parties will be referred in terms of their ranking before this Court in the Civil Revision Petition), learned counsel for respondent No.1 had brought to the notice of this Court, a decision of a Co-ordinate Bench in CRP.No.131/2024, which was filed by respondent No.2-Mr.Rinny Eapen, questioning the very same impugned order which was a order rejecting similar applications filed at the hands of respondent Nos.1 and 2 being the defendants, under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC seeking rejection of the plaint. 3. Sri.Prabhuling Navadgi, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38664 RP No. 275 of 2025 herein was respondent No.1 in the Civil Revision petition. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for respondent No.1 4. Learned Senior Counsel submits that when a Co-ordinate bench of this Court considered the order passed by the trial Court rejecting the application under Order VII Rule 11, this Court was required to consider whether a contrary order could be passed. However, nothing is said by this Court in respect of the said order and therefore, that would amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. Learned Senior Counsel submits that when a ground is urged by a party, it is the duty of the Court to consider such grounds and address itself on the said aspect and give its opinion. However, since nothing has been said by this Court in respect of the said order passed by the Co-ordinate Bench, the matter has to be re-heard. 5. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Ms.Nalina Mayegowda, appearing for the contesting respondent No.1 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38664 RP No. 275 of 2025 which was the petitioner in the CRP submits that when admittedly, this Court was appraised of such a fact that a Co-ordinate Bench had considered similar orders passed by the trial Court and dismissed the Civil Revision Petition while upholding the orders passed by the Trial Court, it would mean, that this Court has taken note of the same and has proceeded to render the judgment taking a different view from that of the Co-ordinate Bench. 6. This according to the learned Senior Counsel this would not be an error apparent on the face of the record. At most, the review petitioner may have a valid ground to raise, while questioning the orders passed by this Court. Learned Senior Counsel seeks to place reliance on Malleeswari Vs. K.Suguna and Another reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 1927, where the Hon'ble Supreme Court has reiterated while summoning up the precedents on the point regarding consideration of a review petition, that review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38664 RP No. 275 of 2025 Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC; review is not to be confused with appellate powers, which may enable the appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate Court; the exercise of the jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, is permissible only for the limited purpose. In terms of the provisions contained in Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC such a petition for review shall be considered and not for re-hearing the matter; the power of review can be exercised for the correction of a mistake, but not to substitute a view. Such powers can be exercised within the limits specified in the statute governing the exercise of power; The Review Court does not sit in appeal over its own order. A rehearing of the matter is impermissible. It constitutes an exception to the general Rule that once a judgment is signed or pronounced, it should not be altered. 7. Having heard the learned Senior Counsels for the review petitioner, the contesting respondent and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:38664 RP No. 275 of 2025 considered opinion that the ground on which this review petition is filed, namely that this Court has not taken into consideration a decision rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench considering similar orders passed by the trial Court rejecting an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 in CRP No.131/2024, would amount to an error apparent on the face of the record. It would be the duty of the Court to address itself to every ground raised and argued before this Court. This Court has missed the fact that such decision was rendered by a Co-ordinate Bench. It has not addressed itself to such an issue raised at the hands of both the learned counsels. In that view of the matter, the review petition should succeed. Accordingly, the review petition is allowed. The Civil Revision Petition in CRP No.318/2024 stands restored to its original file. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv Sl No.:35, CT: BHK