- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24208-DB RP No. 199 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR REVIEW PETITION NO. 199 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.8318 OF 2020 (GM-CON) BETWEEN: 1. M/S. SEQUEIRA STAR HOME BUILDERS HAVING ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA HAVING ITS BRANCH OFFICE AT KADRI TOLLGATE KADRI, MANGALORE-575 001 KARNATAKA 2. MR. FELIX SYLVESTER SEQUEIRA S/O MR. STANISLAUS SEQUEIRA AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS R/O COTTAGE NO.44 WARODA ROAD BANDRA WEST MUMBAI-400 050 3. MRS. ROMALDINE BERNADINE SEQUEIRA W/O MR. FELIX SYLVESTER SEQUEIRA R/O 44, WARODA ROAD BANDRA WEST MUMBAI-400 050 MAHARASHTRA 4. MR.MCFEL FRANCIS SEQUEIRA S/O MR. FELIX SYLVESTER SEQUIERA R/O COTTAGE NO.44 WARODA ROAD BANDRA (WEST) Digitally signed by ANJALI M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24208-DB RP No. 199 of 2025 MUMBAI-400 050 MAHARASHTRA …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VINAYAK KAMATH K, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. BRAYAN VAZ S/O LATE SEBASTIAN VAZ R/O KADRI, MANGALORE-575 002 KARNATAKA 2. HERALD D' SOUZA S/O LATE R. LOIS D SOUZA R/O 064, TIARE APARTMENTS ALVARIS ROAD, KADRI MANGALORE-575 001 KARNATAKA 3. JOSEPH REGO S/O LATE CHARLES REGO R/O 102, 1ST FLOOR STAR LEGACY-1, KADRI TOLLGATE MANGALORE-575 001 4. QUEENIE REGO W/O MR. JOSEPH REGO R/O 102, 1ST FLOOR STAR LEGACY-1, KADRI TOLLGATE MANGALORE-575 001 KARNATAKA 5. ROQUE BONIFACE D'SOUZA S/O LATE MOURICE D'SOUZA R/O MATHRUCHAYA, 1ST FLOOR PRANTHYA VILLAGE - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24208-DB RP No. 199 of 2025 BANTWAL ROAD, MOODBIDRI MANGALORE, KARNATAKA 6. STANLEY PINTO S/O LATE GREGORY PINTO R/O B-2 APARTMENT-1, STAR LEGACY-1 KADRI TOLLGATE MANGALORE-575 001 KARNATAKA 7. MARIA PINTO W/O MR. STANLEY PINTO R/O B-2, APARTMENT-1 STAR LEGACY-1, KADRI TOLLGATE MANGALORE-575 001 KARNATAKA …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 of CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 16.04.2025 PASSED IN WP NO.8318/2020 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND RECALL THE SAID ORDER BY ALLOWING THIS PETITION AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HON'BLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24208-DB RP No. 199 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) The review petitioners have filed this petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short, "CPC"). The review petitioners have sought reconsideration of the judgment rendered by this Court on 16.04.2025 in WP.No.8318/2020, wherein writ petition came to be dismissed with an award of exemplary costs amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs Only). 2. The review petitioners now urge that certain errors, both factual and legal, vitiate the said Judgment and that this Court must revisit its conclusions. Upon a meticulous examination of the case history, the judicial records, and the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we are not persuaded to accede to the request for review for the following reasons. 3. The genesis of the controversy lies in a residential development project styled as "Star Legacy" constructed and promoted by the review petitioners. The - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24208-DB RP No. 199 of 2025 purchasers, who are now arrayed as respondents, had entered into purchase agreements with the developers more than a decade ago. It is not disputed before us that the petitioners failed to comply with several cardinal legal and contractual obligations flowing from such transactions. These include, notably, the failure to obtain an Occupancy Certificate from the Competent Planning Authority, non- execution of the deed of declaration as mandated by the Karnataka Apartment Ownership Act, 1972, and persistent neglect in remedying several constructional and structural deficiencies despite repeated demands by the flat owners. These cumulative failures not only breached the trust reposed by the purchasers but also rendered them vulnerable to significant physical, legal and financial hardship. 4. The records of this case further reveal that, the aggrieved residents had, as early as in the year 2013, approached the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum seeking redressal of their grievances. The said - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24208-DB RP No. 199 of 2025 Consumer Forum, upon appreciating the evidence and submissions placed before it, allowed the complaints and directed the petitioners to undertake structural repairs, obtain the necessary occupancy permissions, execute the requisite documentation in accordance with law, and pay appropriate compensation. 5. Despite the passage of time and despite the petitioner's knowledge of the binding nature of the said orders, compliance was not carried out by the petitioners. Instead, what followed was a pattern of calculated and deliberate defiance of the said order. The flat owners, being left with no option, were compelled to initiate Execution Proceedings under Section 27 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. The Executing Court after affording adequate opportunity to the parties proceeded to pass coercive orders, including imposition of fines and orders of imprisonment. 6. Further, the material placed on record by the parties' shows that, rather than complying with the orders - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24208-DB RP No. 199 of 2025 of the Consumer Forum and bringing closure to the dispute, the petitioner pursued successive rounds of litigation before the Karnataka State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at New Delhi, and thereafter even before the Hon'ble Apex Court of India. At each stage, the petitioner's stand was found untenable and the findings of the District Forum were affirmed. These judicial outcomes conclusively recorded that the developers had failed to honour their obligations and had willfully obstructed the enforcement of consumer rights. Notwithstanding these multiple pronouncements, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the above-mentioned Writ Petition by invoking Article 226 of the Constitution of India to assail the very same orders. 7. This Court, while dismissing the Writ Petition on 16.04.2025, was constrained to observe that the petition itself was devoid of merit and was a text book case of forum shopping, aimed solely at thwarting the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24208-DB RP No. 199 of 2025 enforcement of binding consumer redressal orders. The conduct of the petitioners was found to be thoroughly unmeritorious, bordering on contemptuous defiance of legal process. Therefore, exemplary costs were imposed both as a measure of deterrence and to compensate the flat owners who had been subjected to prolonged litigation and unnecessary harassment for over a decade. 8. The present Review Petition is an attempt to reopen the same issues under the guise of pointing out errors apparent on the face of the record. The principle contentions now urged by the counsel for the petitioners are that: a. Compliance with legal obligation was rendered impossible due to the stay imposed by the Hon'ble Apex Court on the Akrama-Sakrama Regularization Scheme. b. Mediation proceedings were underway at the time the writ petition was dismissed and there existed a possibility of buyback settlement with a flat owner and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24208-DB RP No. 199 of 2025 c. Certain administrative and financial delays on the part of Banking Institutions and Government Authorities contributed to the delay in compliance. 9. Having considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the review petitioners and having independently verified the records, we are of the considered opinion that, none of the grounds urged before us satisfy the well defined parameters for the exercise of review jurisdiction. The law is settled beyond cavil that review is not an appeal in disguise. The scope of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC is narrow and can be exercised only where there is manifest error apparent on the face of the record, or where new and important evidence, which could not have been produced earlier with due diligence, has subsequently become available. Mere repetition of earlier attempts to re-agitate factual issues already adjudicated upon is not permissible under the principle of review. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24208-DB RP No. 199 of 2025 10. The plea regarding the Akrama-Sakrama scheme has been carefully examined. The stay granted by the Hon'ble Apex Court in respect of the said scheme relating to the validity and implementation of certain Government policy on regularization, however, it did not in any manner preclude the petitioners from undertaking other obligations such as making structural repairs, paying compensation, or even exploring alternative lawful methods to obtain Occupancy Certification. The stay was neither an embargo nor a bar on complying with a judicial direction. To the contrary, the orders passed by the Consumer Forum and affirmed by the higher Courts were to be complied with "as per law", which leaves no room for defiance. 11. As to the contention that mediation was underway, it is indeed unfortunate that no substantiating material has been brought on record. Neither any mediation settlement report nor any official communication was submitted to this Court prior to the - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24208-DB RP No. 199 of 2025 dismissal of the writ petition. The purported buyback proposal remains unverified and speculative in nature. Courts of law cannot proceed on the basis of hypothetical settlements or oral assurances. It is also noteworthy that, pendency of mediation, even if accepted for arguments, the parties are referred to as per their ranking before the trial Court for the sake of convenience, does not itself justify a party's non-compliance with final judicial orders. 12. On the question of administrative and financial hurdles, this Court finds no reason to believe that these were beyond the petitioners' control. The review petitioners are not laypersons but, experienced real estate developers familiar with regulatory procedures. The plea that they were unable to process bank documentation or complete financial closures due to the year-end constraints is both unconvincing and bereft of evidentiary support. 13. Ultimately what weighs most heavily with this Court is the pattern of conduct consistently exhibited by the petitioners. Their repeated refusal to honour binding - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24208-DB RP No. 199 of 2025 directions of judicial orders, their pursuit of parallel and repetitive litigation, and their attempt to delay compliance through one legal stratagem after another - all collectively point to an intent to defeat justice rather than obtain it. The dignity of the judicial process demands that such a tactics be met with sternness. 14. Resultantly, the review petition is found to be lacking in merit and substance. The grounds urged are not only insufficient under the law of review but also reflective of a continuing attempt to prolong a litigation that should have been ended years ago. This Court has already given adequate reasons while dismissing the writ petition and we find no cause to re-visit or revise these conclusions. The petitioners, having been the authors of their own predicament, cannot now seek refuge under the shield of review jurisdiction. 15. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. - 13 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:24208-DB RP No. 199 of 2025 16. Additionally, given the frivolous nature of the application and consequent waste of judicial time and resources, the review petitioners shall pay further costs of Rs.10,000/-(Rupees Ten Thousand Only), to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within a period of four weeks from the date of the judgment. 17. If the petitioners fail to comply with this direction, it shall be open to the Executing Court concerned to initiate appropriate coercive proceeding in accordance with law to ensure the realization of the said amount. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE AM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2