- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17780 RP No. 100002 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA REVIEW PETITION NO. 100002 OF 2022 (-) BETWEEN: MAHDEVAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA HARIJAN @ MADAR, AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R/O. NANDIHALLI, TQ. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDAPPA S. SAJJAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. SHANTAVVA CALLING HERSELF W/O. FAKKIRAPPA HARIJAN @ MADAR AGE. 41 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, R/O. YATTINAHALLI, TQ. HANGAL, DIST. HAVERI. 2. CHANNABASAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA HARIJAN ALIAS MADAR AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 3. MARIYAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA HARIJAN @ MADAR AGE. 69 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 4. FAKKIRAPPA S/O. NEELAPPA HARIJAN ALIAS MADAR AGE. 71 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 5. SMT. KARIYAVV W/O. SHIVAPPA HARIJAN ALIAS MADAR AGE. 81 YEARS, OCC. COOLIE, (R1 TO R5 R/O. NANDIHALLI, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI) 6. FAKKIRAPPA MOTHER OF DYAMAVVA HARIJAN @ MADAR, AGE. 79 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, RAKESH S HARIHAR Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Location: High Court of Karnataka Dharwad Bench Date: 2025.12.12 14:34:07 +0530 - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17780 RP No. 100002 of 2022 R/O. RANEBENNUR, DIST. HAVERI. 7. SHRI. NEELAPPA S/O. NINGAPPA HARIJAN @ MADAR AGE. 76 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, 8. MAHANTEESH S/O. NEELAPPA HARIJAN ALIAS MADAR AGE. 46 YEARS, OCC. AGRICULTURE, R7 AND 8 ARE R/O. NANDIHALLI, TQ. SAVANUR, DIST. HAVERI. 9. NINGAPPA S/O. CHANNABASAPPA HARIJAN @ MADAR, AGE: 58 YEARS, OCC: UNEMPLOYED 10. VANAMALA D/O. CHANNABASAPPA HARIJAN @ MADAR, AGE: 55 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER 11. SUGANDHA D/O. CHANNABASAPPA HARIJAN @ MADAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: TEACHER AMENDED AND BROUGHT ON RECORD AS PER ORDER RESPONDENTS 9 TO 12 ARE R/O. NANDIHALLI, POST: NIRALAGI, TQ: SAVANUR, DIST: HAVERI-581118. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.SADIK KANVI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SMT. VINUTA M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. M. M. KHANNUR, ADVOCATE FOR R2 (1 TO 4); SRI. P.H. PAWAR, ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5; R6 NOTICE DISPENSED WITH) THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN R.S.A. 5650/2012 DATED 21.10.2020, AND GRANT THE RELIEF AS PRAYED FOR IN THE R.S.A.5650/2012 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17780 RP No. 100002 of 2022 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking review of an order passed in the Regular Second Appeal by this Court on 21.10.2020. The appeal was itself preferred on concurrent findings of both the trial Court and the first appellate Court in O.S. No.104 of 2006 and R.A. No.50 of 2009, respectively. 2. Heard the learned counsel Sri.Siddappa Sajjan, appearing for review petitioner and learned counsel Sri.Sadik Kanvi, appearing for respondent No.1, learned counsel Smt.Vinuta M. Khannur for Sri.Madanmohan M. Khannur, for respondents No.2(1 to 4), learned counsel Sri.P.H.Pawar, appearing for respondents No.3 to 5. 3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner now submits that the evidence which was necessary to be taken on record and considered by the Trial Court and the First Appellate Court has not been appreciated in appropriate manner. He would further submit that this Court, in paragraphs 19 and 20, has made observation with regard to the evidence, which was not the evidence that was led in before the Courts below. However, this Court has only recorded the concurrent findings of both the Trial - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17780 RP No. 100002 of 2022 Court and the First Appellate Court and has rejected the Regular Second Appeal. 4. A review would arise only if the tenets of Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) are met with regard to error apparent on the face of the record. In the present case, there is neither an error nor, much less, an error apparent on the face of the record. As the concurrent findings, the petitioner now wants to undo the concurrent findings that are affirmed in the Regular Second Appeal, in the guise of filing a review. Unless the case falls within the ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, a review would not be entertainable in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in KAMLESH VERMA v. MAYAWATI1, wherein the Apex Court has held as follows: “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 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] 1 (2013) 8 SCC 320 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC-D:17780 RP No. 100002 of 2022 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] 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. (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.” (Emphasis supplied) 5. In the light of the aforesaid judgment and the unequivocal fact that there is no error apparent on the face of the record to come within Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, the review petition stands rejected. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE Rsh / Rhr CT:ANB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30