- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50743 CRP No. 619 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 619 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SHRI. N. J. LAKSHMAN, S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/AT NAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-570 009. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURUDATH B S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT LEELAVATHI, W/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, 2. SRI. MANI S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, 3. SRI. RAGHU S/O LATE JAVAREGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT MAGARAHALLI MANTI BELAGOLA HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 401. RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 3 ARE LRS OF DECEASED SHRI. JAVAREGOWDA WHO WAS FIRST RESPONDENT IN Digitally signed by C HONNUR SAB Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50743 CRP No. 619 of 2023 TRIAL COURT. 4. SRI RAJENDRA S/O LATE NARASEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, R/AT NAGANAHALLI VILLAGE, MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-570 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANTHOSH KUMAR M.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R4) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SEC.115 OF CPC., AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 24.03.2023 PASSED IN R.E.V. NO.2/2017 ON THE FILE OF II ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND CJM, MYSURU, DISMISSING THE PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC R/W SEC.114 OF CPC. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri.Gurudath B.S., the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Santhosh Kumar M.B., the learned counsel appearing for contesting respondent on the merits of the matter. 2. The revision petitioner had filed a petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of Code of Civil Procedure to review the order passed in M.A.No.119/2015, challenging the dismissal of the Review Petition in R.E.V. No.2/2017 on the file of II Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Mysuru. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50743 CRP No. 619 of 2023 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present petition are as under: 3.1 Revision petitioner filed a Miscellaneous Appeal in M.A.No.119/2015 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (for short 'Act of 1963') to condone the delay of 224 days in filing the Miscellaneous Appeal. Application seeking condonation of delay was dismissed, consequently, appeal in M.A.No.119/2015 was also dismissed. 3.2 Review Petition came to be filed stating that an opportunity should have been granted to lead evidence on the application filed under Section 5 of the Act of 1963 seeking condonation of delay of 224 days and therefore dismissal of the Miscellaneous Appeal consequent to the dismissal of the application filed under Section 5 of the Act of 1963 and not condoning the delay of 224 days has affected the rights of the review petitioner. 4. The grounds of review was opposed by respondent No.2 by filing detailed objections contending that the Review Petition was not maintainable and the allegations in the Review Petition are incorrect. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50743 CRP No. 619 of 2023 5. It is further contented that respondent No.1 in the said matter died and therefore an application under Order XXII Rule 9 and Section 5 of the Act of 1963 was filed which was allowed. 6. The orders passed by the Court was required to be challenged before the District Court and not by filing an appeal before the Civil Court and therefore the Miscellaneous Appeal filed by the review petitioner itself was not maintainable. 7. Before the Trial Court, respondent also contended that despite furnishing the information with re gard to the legal representatives of the deceased respondent No.1, there was no proper steps taken by the review petitioner and sought for dismissal of the Review Petition. 8. Learned Trial Judge after hearing the parties, dismissed the said review petition by holding in paragraph Nos.7 to 11 as under: "7. Point No.1: The counsel for petitioner has filed the petition to review the order passed in MA.119/2015 dated 21.02.2017 by stating that the review of the said orders is quite necessary by assigning grounds that the application rejected was not maintainable, the objections which was considered was not maintainable and the opportunity which was not - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50743 CRP No. 619 of 2023 given for evidence in deciding the application is not maintainable because the petitioner could not file the MA.119/2015 immediately as the petitioner was working in Police Department and he could not furnish the document within the time limit and as such the delay had taken place and to condone the delay the application was filed which was dismissed is not proper and correct in view of assigning reasons.. Therefore the order passed in MA.119/2015 is liable to be reviewed and sought for allowing the petition. 8. As the petition is filed by the petitioner seeking to review the Order passed in MA.119/2015 it is necessary to know as to whether the petitioner has made out prima-facie case to consider the relief sought for in the petition. The petitioner has filed the petition U/o XLVII of CPC. Therefore, it is necessary to know the provisions of Order. The order XLVII Rule 1 reads as follows: 1. Application for review of judgment (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved- (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50743 CRP No. 619 of 2023 on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment of the Court which passed the decree or made the order. 9. Thus in view of the provisions Under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is clear that for the purpose of considering the petition under review the four essential ingredients must fulfil they are: 1. There must be discovery of new and important matter or evidence. 2. That the new and important matter which after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when order made. 3. An mistake or error apparent on the face of record. 4. For any sufficient reason. 10. Thus if the above four ingredients are fulfilled or shown by the petitioner then the petitioner is entitle for the order of review. I have also gone through the grounds for review. The grounds stated for review by the petitioner is; 1. The application which was rejected is not maintainable, 2. The objections of respondent which was considered is not maintainable, 3. The opportunity which was not given for adducing evidence in order to decide the application Under Section 5 of Limitation Act, 4. The petitioner was working in Police Department and due to not securing the documents in time in view of - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50743 CRP No. 619 of 2023 his work and not able to furnish the document immediately due to which the delay had taken place. 11. Thus as per Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC the judgment and order can be reviewed in case if there is any discovery of new and important matter or evidence or if the important matter was not within his knowledge or error apparent on the face of record or for any sufficient reasons, but in the present case the petitioner has sought for review of the order for the above stated four reasons. The reasons stated for reviewing the order is not coming within the purview of order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. Further as the orders was passed on application U/s. 5 of Limitation Act, under these circumstances the remedy or option available to the petitioner is to challenge the order by filing separate petition before the Appellate Court and as such here again the question of review do not arise because the orders on application U/S.5 of Limitation Act was filed by assigning with reasons. The reason stated is not satisfied by the appellant then the petitioner can challenge the same before the Appellate Authority and not here as it do not goes to show the error apparent on the face of record. Thus the grounds urged by the petitioner do not goes to show that there is error apparent on the face of record. However as per petitioner if he is not agreed with the order, then the petitioner can challenge the same before appellate court and this court cannot consider or review regarding the grounds stated in the petition. Thus the petitioner has not made out valid and cogent grounds to - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50743 CRP No. 619 of 2023 consider the relief sought for in the petition and as such I answer this point No.1 in the Negative." 9. Being aggrieved by the same, revision petitioner has filed the present Civil Revision Petition on the following grounds: (a) The impugned order passed by the Learned Trial Court on Review petition in Rev 2/2017 under order 47 Rule 1 of CPC r/w sec 114 of CPC is highly illegal and arbitrary and hence all to interference of this Hon'ble court. (b) The Court below never looked the facts of the case and simply passed an order by believing the say of the Respondents. The order is illegal and arbitrary and bad in law. Hence it has to be set aside. (c) The Court below never looked at the facts or law of the case and also the provision of the Civil Procedure Code. (d) The Court below wrongly interpreted the provision of Order 47 rule 1 of CPC and passed erroneous order which is illegal. (e) Rejection of the IA filed by the petition by the Court below of Mysore is astonishing and is not sustainable which the Court below never looked up on it. - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50743 CRP No. 619 of 2023 (f) When the respondent filed objection to the IA in MA 11/2015 in 2nd Additional Senior Civil Judge, Mysore an opportunity was to be given the petitioner to lead evidence. But the Court below never look upon the same. The order passed in MA. No.119/2015 on IA was detailed order and hence review petition was filed. But the Court blindly dismissed the review petition stating that the petition is not maintainable. (g) The review petition was urged by stating that the Court below in passing the order in MA.119/2015 never passed and detail order and many facts was missing. Hence rev petition was filed new grounds but the court below erred in stating that no new grounds was urged the petition has to be rejected. (h) The grounds urged in the Rev petition was not looked upon by the trial Court while passing the order and hence the order is erroneous and bad in law and has to be set aside. (i) The Court came to wrong conclusion that the reasons stating for reviewing the order is not coming with the purview of the order 47 rule 1 of CPC and also came to wrong conclusion that the petitioner has to prefer an petition before the Appellate Court. This observation made by the trial Court is not correct and is erroneous. The rev is maintainable and the grounds urged by the petitioner in the said Rev petition has followed all - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50743 CRP No. 619 of 2023 the ingredient and are fulfilled. But the Court came to the wrong conclusion and dismissed the said Revision petition. (j) View by any angle the impugned order is highly illegal and unjust and bad in law and hence the same is liable to be set aside. (k) There is delay in filing the above petition and separate application is filed for condoning the same and the required court fee is Rs.20/- is paid on the revision under Article II(q)(iii) of Schedule II of Karnataka Court fees and suits valuation Act." 10. Sri B.S.Gurudath, the learned counsel for the revision petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the Revision Petition, vehemently contented that the approach of the Trial Court in dismissing the Miscellaneous Appeal on the ground of delay and thereafter refusing to review the said order has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice and sought for allowing the Revision Petition. 11. Per contra, counsel for the respondents Sri Santhosh Kumar M.B., would support the impugned order. 12. Having heard the arguments of both sides, this Court perused the material on record meticulously. On such perusal of the material on record, it is crystal clear that the learned Trial Judge - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:50743 CRP No. 619 of 2023 took note of the ingredients for the review of the order in paragraph No.9 as referred to supra. 13. The Trial Judge has recorded a categorical finding that parameters to review the order was absent in the grounds of the Review Petition and has taken note that there was no apparent error on record nor there was any misconstruing of the legal provisions so as to review the order passed in the M.A. No.119/2015 and rightly dismissed the Review Petition. 14. Taking note of the sound and logical reasons assigned by the learned Trial Judge while dismissing the Review Petition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the impugned order does not warrant interference that too in the revisional jurisdiction. Accordingly the following: ORDER The Civil Revision Petition is dismissed. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE GVP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22