- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6956 RP No. 100020 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 26TH DAY OF APRIL 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO. 100020 OF 2022 BETWEEN: 1. PRESIDENT ANJUMAN E-ISLAM DHARWAD-580001. 2. SECRETARY ANJUMAN E-ISLAM DHARWAD-580001. &PETITIONERS (BY SRI. AHAMED ALI J.RAHIMANSHA, ADVOCATE) AND: KALAL SAMAJ SEVA SANGAH DHARWAD, R/BY ITS PANCHAS 1. PUNDALIKAPPA PARASHURAM KALAL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. NEAR HEAD QUARTERS ROAD, DHARWAD-580001. 2. PREMKANT AMBAJI KALAL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS R/O. LINE BAZAAR, BHOSSAPPA CHOWK, DHARWAD-580001. 3. JAGANATH HUSSAINAJI KALAL AGE: MAJOR, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. LINE BAZAAR, BHOSSAPPA CHOWK, DHARWAD-580001. 4. THE SECRETARY KARNATAKA WAKF9S BOARD, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU-560005. &RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.05.02 13:11:41 +0530 - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6956 RP No. 100020 of 2022 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 OF CPC PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS; JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON9BLE COURT IN RSA NO.5479/2013 CONNECTED WITH RSA NO.5478/2013 DATED 11.01.2022 MAY KINDLY BE REVIEWED AND SET ASIDE THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED ON DATED 11.01.2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY; CONSEQUENTLY CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN OS NO.36/1994 FILED BY THE PLAINTIFF AND DISMISS THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER PASSED IN RA NO.25/2008 BY THE III FAST TRACK COURT, DHARWAD AND ALLOW THE RA NO.54/2008 FILE BY THE APPELLANTS/DEFENDANTS NO.3, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND CONSCIENCE. THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment rendered in RSA Nos.5479 and 5478 of 2013. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the review petitioners. Perused the judgment rendered by this court. This court also given its anxious consideration to the grounds urged in the review petition. 3. On closer examination of the grounds urged, this court would find that review petition is filed under the garb of seeking review, is virtually seeking re-hearing, - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6956 RP No. 100020 of 2022 which is not permissible under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. Since the ingredients provided under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC are not made out, this court is of the view that there is no error apparent on the face, which would warrant interference. 4. 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 OTHERS reported in 2020 SCC ONLINE SC 896 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, 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 - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:6956 RP No. 100020 of 2022 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. 5. The review petition is devoid of merits is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE MBS Ct:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1