- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10632-DB RP No. 100084 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF AUGUST 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA REVIEW PETITION NO.100084 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. THE GENERAL MANAGER 3RD FLOOR, RAIL SOUDHA SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580020. 2. THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER 2ND FLOOR, EAST BLOCK, RAIL SOUDHA, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580020. 3. THE PRINCIPAL CHEIF PERSONNEL OFFICER 1ST FLOOR, WEST BLOCK, RAIL SOUDHA, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580020. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. M.B.KANAVI, ADVOCATE) AND: SHRI. P. RAVINDRA NAIDU S/O. LATE P. BHASKARADU, Digitally signed by SAMREEN AYUB DESHNUR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH Date: 2025.09.02 16:24:22 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10632-DB RP No. 100084 of 2023 AGE: 46 YEARS, OFFICE SUPERINTENDENT/PLG, (NOW @ DISMISSED STAGE) OFFICE OF THE PRINCIPAL CHIEF OPERATIONS MANAGER, 2ND FLOOR, EAST BLOCK, RAIL SOUDHA, GADAG ROAD, SOUTH WESTERN RAILWAY, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD-580020. COMMUNICATION ADDRESS P. RAVINDRA NAIDU, 46 YEARS, R/O. 135/A, GADAG ROAD, HUBBALLI, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580020, CELL 9964522844. …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. P.RAVINDRA NAIDU, PARTY-IN-PERSON) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW ITS ORDER DATED 11.10.2023 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.104167/2023 AND RESTORE THE WRIT PETITION FOR HEARING ON MERITS 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10632-DB RP No. 100084 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) This review petition takes exception to the final order dated 11.10.2023 passed in W.P.No.104167/2023 filed by respondent/writ petitioner, whereby the said petition filed by the respondent/writ petitioner was allowed by this Court in terms of the said order. 2. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioners and respondent/writ petitioner, party-in-person and perused the material on record. 3. We have given our anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioners and respondent, party-in-person and perused the material on record including the order under review passed by this Court on 11.10.2023 in W.P.No.104167/2023 and the principles enunciated by 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10632-DB RP No. 100084 of 2023 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 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:10632-DB RP No. 100084 of 2023 (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 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 order under review 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, we do not find any merit in the review petition and same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Sd/- (G BASAVARAJA) JUDGE EM Ct:vh :List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2