- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11931-DB RP No. 100017 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REVIEW PETITION NO. 100017 OF 2025 IN WRIT PETITION NO.111330 OF 2019 BETWEEN: SHRI. K. GANGADHAR, S/O. K.C.RUDRANNA GOWDA, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: SECOND DIVISION ASSISTANT, TALUKA OFFICE, SIRUGUPPA, TQ: SIRUGUPPA, DIST: BALLARI, R/O. JAOGALLU ROAD, 7TH CROSS, BALLARI-583101, TQ/DIST: BALLARI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. A S PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, 5TH FLOOR, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001. 2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11931-DB RP No. 100017 of 2025 M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001, R/BY ITS REGISTRAR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. G.K.HIREGOUDAR, GOVT. ADVOCATE FOR R1 SRI. ANIL KALE, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS REVIEW PETITION IN WP NO.111330/2019 IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 09.08.2023 PASSED IN WP NO.11130/2019 VIDE ANNEXURE-A CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 12.04.2019 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.880/2016 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE TRIBUNAL AS PRAYED FOR, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) This review petition takes exception to the final order dated 09.08.2023 passed in W.P.No.111330/2019, whereby the said petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed by this Court thereby confirming the order dated 12.04.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11931-DB RP No. 100017 of 2025 2. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. We have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the material on record including the impugned order in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat – Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020, (ii) S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan – (2023) SCC Online SC 185 (iii) S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy – Civil Appeal Nos.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (iv) Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer –2023 SCC Online SC 1406, wherein it is held as under:- 16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:— (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) A judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11931-DB RP No. 100017 of 2025 only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so. (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.” (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long- drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:11931-DB RP No. 100017 of 2025 by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. 4. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, as held in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court. 5. In view of the foregoing reasons, the review petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE KMS CT:VH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3