- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16306 RP No. 100009 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA REVIEW PETITION NO. 100009 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTES BY ITS PRINCIPALE SECRETARY, DEPARATMENT OF REVENUE, M.S.BULIDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU – 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF DHARWAD, TQ AND DIST DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 580 001. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, DHARWAD, TQ AND DIST DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 580 001. 4. THE ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF LAND RECORDS HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBLLI, DISTRICT: DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 580 009. 5. THE TAHASHILDAR, HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST DHARWAD, PIN CODE - 580 009. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. V.S.KALASURMATH, AGA) AND: SIDLINGAGUDA A/F MAHADEVAGOUDA PATIL, R/O: MANGALWAR PET, HUBBALLI, Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench, Dharwad - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16306 RP No. 100009 of 2025 SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., MAHADEVAGOUDA SIDLINGAGOUDA PATIL, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., 1. SMT. MANJULA W/O. MAHADEVAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD, R/O: KILLA, BANDIWAD AGASSI, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 580 032. 2. MANIKANTHAGOUDA S/O. MAHADEVAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: KILLA, BANDIWAD AGASSI, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 580 032. 3. MANORANJAN S/O. MAHADEVAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 33 YEARS, OCC: PRIVATE WORK, R/O: KILLA, BANDIWAD AGASSI, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 580 032. 4. FAKKIRAGOUDA S/O. SIDLINGAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE SERVICE, R/O: ISHWAE NAGAR, OLD – HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD. 5. KOTREPPAGOUDA S/O. SIDLINGAGOUDA PATIL, OCC: AGRICUTLURE-SERVICE, R/O: MANGALWAR PETH, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 580 031. 6. MALLANAGOUDA S/O. SIDLINGAGOUDA PATIL, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: AGRICUTLURE-SERVICE, R/O: MANGALWAR PETH, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 580 031. PRAKAH A/F BASAPPA HADAGALI AT MUDENNAVAR, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16306 RP No. 100009 of 2025 SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., 7. SUPRIT S/O. PRAKASH HADAGALI, AT MUDENNAVAR, AGE: 39 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MANGALWAR PET, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 580 031. 8. KIRAN S/O. PRAKASH HADAGALI, AT MUDENNAVAR, AGE: 40 YEARS, OCC: STUDENT, R/O: MANGALWAR PET, HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 580 031. 9. SUNLIKUMAR W/O. BHAWARLALA BHURAT, R/O: HIREPETH, OLD – HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 580 031. 10. SMT. SHARADA W/O. MAHENDRA SHINGI, R/O: KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 580 023. 11. SMT. VIJAYKUMAR MANGLILAAJI JAIN, R/O: KESHWAPUR, HUBBALLI, TQ: HUBBALLI, DIST: DHARWAD, PIN CODE: 580 023. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. RAJASHEKHAR B. HALLI, ADV. FOR R1 TO R6) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 AND ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO A) CALL FOR RECORDS IN WP NO.103777/2023 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT. B) REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 11/09/2023 IN WP NO.103777/2023 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC., THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16306 RP No. 100009 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) The State is before the Court seeking a review of an order dated 11.09.2023 disposing writ petition No.103777/2023. 2. Heard the learned AGA for the petitioners and the learned counsel Sri. Rajashekhar B. Halli for respondents. 3. The petitioners are the plaintiffs, had approached this Court seeking a direction for entry of their names in the record of rights in terms of a judgment and decree dated 06.09.2016 passed in O.S. No.245 of 1996. The petitioners, as observed herein above were plaintiffs, in a suit for partition and separate possession. It transpires that the suit is decreed on 06.09.2016. In the interregnum, these petitioners had sold the property to third parties and all those third parties, who were though arrived as respondents in the writ petition, dispensation application was filed seeking dispensation of issuance of notice to those respondents and on the score that the State has not complied with the order of entry of the names of these petitioners in the record of rights has initiated contempt - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16306 RP No. 100009 of 2025 proceedings before the Division Bench. It is therefore the State has filed the subject review petition. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners is not in a position to answer as to whether third party rights are created or otherwise. If third party rights had been created by these very petitioners, in the interregnum, there was no warrant for the petitioners to approach this Court and seek entry of their names in the record of rights notwithstanding the aforesaid sale that had taken place during the subsistence of the suit or post the suit prior to filing of the subject petition. 5. In the light of the review petition preferred by the State, on the score that the order has been obtained by misleading the Court, it would become an enough circumstance for this Court to entertain the review petition and recall the order in the light of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kamalesh Verma vs. Mayawati and others1, “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 1 (2013) 8 SCC 320 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16306 RP No. 100009 of 2025 within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (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] This extract is taken from Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati, (2013) 8 SCC 320 : (2013) 3 SCC (Civ) 782 : (2013) 4 SCC (Cri) 265 : (2014) 1 SCC (L&S) 96 : 2013 SCC OnLine SC 714 at page 333 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:16306 RP No. 100009 of 2025 (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.” In the light of the said judgment, the order dated 11.09.2023 stands recalled. The writ petition is restored to file to be heard after issuance of notice to the private respondent Nos.6 to 11. Issue emergent notice to respondent Nos.6 to 11 returnable by 19.11.2025. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE RSH/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 150