- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49693 CRP No. 787 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO. 787 OF 2023 (EX) BETWEEN: SMT K R SATYAVATHI W/O A S PATTABHIRAMAN AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS RESIDENT OF NO.607A 1ST MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE E BLOCK, RAJAJINAGAR BANGALORE -560 010 …PETITIONER (BY SRI C.V.NAGESH, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI RAGHAVENDRA.K, ADVOCATE) AND: M/S.KARNATAKA INDUSTRIAL AREA DEVELOPMENT BOARD KHANIJA BHAVAN RACE COURSE ROAD BANGALORE – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER …RESPONDENT (BY SRI D.BOREGOWDA, ADVOCATE) THIS CRP IS FILED UNDER SECTION 115 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 04.11.2023 PASSED IN EX. PETITION NO.1718/2014 ON THE FILE OF THE VI ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, C/C. OF II ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, BANGALORE, THE PRESENT EXECUTION PETITION IS CLOSED AS FULLY SATISFIED, SO FAR AS THE CLAIM OF THE DECREE HOLDER IS CONCERNED. Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49693 CRP No. 787 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA ORAL ORDER Heard Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel for Sri Raghavendra K., counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri D.Boregoda for the respondent. 2. Decree holder is the revision petitioner challenging the order of the Executing Court passed in Execution Case No.1718/2014, directing the decree holder to repay the excess amount to the Karnataka Industrial Areas Development Board (‘KIADB’ for short) in a sum of Rs.6,13,760/- and dismissing the execution petition insofar as the balance of the decretal amount. 3. Facts in the nutshell which are utmost necessary for disposal of the present case are as under: 3.1. Judgment debtor - KIADB acquired the land of the decree holder and the acquisition proceedings and quantum of compensation has attained finality. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49693 CRP No. 787 of 2023 4. When the matter stood thus, Execution Petition came to be filed in Execution case No.1718/2014 initially claiming a sum of Rs.38,13,773.35/- and later on the claim was amended on the pretext of improper calculation. 5. An amendment to the decretal claim was allowed by the Executing Court, accepting the version of the decree holder that the amount in deposit was first appropriated towards the interest and balance decretal claim was claimed. 6. Challenging the said amendment, KIADB filed writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.10912/2023. 7. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court on merits disposed of dismissed the said writ petition challenging the amendment by Order dated 04.07.2023, whereby, modified claim in the execution petition was upheld. 8. When the decree holder wanted to execute the decree for the remaining amount, KIADB raised the objection with regard to the claim in a sum of Rs.1,90,25,195/- on various grounds including the ground of recording the amount from the date of award instead of date of actual taking possession. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49693 CRP No. 787 of 2023 9. Date of award according to the KIADB, is 12.06.2008, but there is no document to establish that when was the exact date on which the possession of land was taken by the KIADB. 10. Sri D.Boregoda, learned counsel for the respondent – KIADB, submits that despite best efforts, the mahazar taking possession of the land is not found with KIADB in their records. 11. Sri C.V. Nagesh, learned Senior Counsel for the revision petitioner, would contend that when KIADB failed to get the amendment set aside from this Court in the aforesaid writ petition, as an afterthought, has raised the objection to the decretal claim which is per se incorrect. 12. He would also point out that not only the learned trial Judge in the executing Court, passed a wrong order in directing the decree holder to repay the sum of Rs.6,13,760/- which according to the trial Court, is an excess payment made by KIADB, on wrong calculation but also closing the execution petition has resulted in grave injustice. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49693 CRP No. 787 of 2023 13. Having heard the arguments of both sides, it is just and necessary for this Court to cull out paragraphs 13.4 to 17 of the impugned order. “13.4 The table showing the entitlement of the decree holders as on 01.12.2008: Sl. No. Particulars Amount (Rs.) 1. Market value (both land an building) 1,30,84,763-00 2. Additional market value 12,41,053-00 3. Solatium 39,25,342-00 4. Interest under Section 34 of the 1894 Act 7,74,037-00 Total 1,90,25,195-00 14. As against the entitlement of the decree holders to compensation amount of Rs.1,90,25,195/- as on 01.12.2008. The KIADB, has deposited a sum of Rs.1,85,103/- on 01.12.2008. Shortage of amount is Rs.5,25,092/- as on 01.12.2008. 15. Subsequently, on 24.01.2022, the KIADB has deposited a sum of Rs.20,56,397/-. 16. Interest on Rs. 5,25,092/- under Section 34 is as follows: (i) 9% p.a., from 01.12.2008 to 11.06.2009 (193 days) is [Rs.5,25,092 X 9% X 193 by 365] Rs.24,989; and 15% p.a., from 12.06.2009 to 24.01.2022 (11 years 7 months 11 days) is [ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49693 CRP No. 787 of 2023 (Rs.5,25,092 X 15% X 11) + (Rs.5,25,092 X 237 by 365) = Rs.8,66,402 + Rs. 51,143] is Rs. 9,17,545/-. 17. The balance compensation amount due as on 24.01.2022 is Rs.5,25,092 (principal) plus Rs. 9,17,545/- ( interest under Section 34 of the 1894 Act ) equals to Rs.14,42,637/-. As against the said sum of Rs.14,42,637/-, which is due as on 24.01.2022, the KIADB has deposited a sum of Rs.20,56,397/-. The KIADB has deposited a sum of Rs.6,13,760/- in excess of the entitlement of the decree holders under the award under execution in this case. The decree holder is liable to repay said excess amount of Rs.6,13,760/-. In my considered view, which is necessary for this Court to pass an order directing the decree holder to repay said amount of Rs.6,13,760/- under Section 47 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.” 14. As could be seen from the aforesaid paragraphs, learned trial Judge in the executing Court, has misdirected himself in revisiting to the earlier calculations which was accepted by the very same judge. 15. In other words, the learned trial Judge has reviewed his own order in the form of the impugned order in directing the decree holder to pay a sum of Rs.6,13,760/-, that too in the absence of any application filed by the judgment debtor. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49693 CRP No. 787 of 2023 16. Whether a Judge can review his own order when there is no compelling circumstances like fraud etc., was the subject matter of a decision before the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Malleshwari vs. K Suguna and another, reported in SLP(C)No.12787/2005, disposed of on 08.09.2025, wherein Hon'ble Apex Court in 15.3 has held as under: “15.3. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be reheard and corrected. A review petition, it must be remembered, has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an appeal in disguise.” 17. Therefore, in the absence of any application filed by the judgment debtor and when the amendment is allowed by the trial Judge and confirmed by this Court to the execution claim, learned trial Judge holding that the calculation made by the appellant, the revision petition is incorrect and directing the decree holder to pay Rs.6,13,760/- to the KIADB, has resulted in miscarriage of justice and needs to be set aside. 18. Needless to emphasize that having erroneously recorded a finding, the learned trial judge has also closed the execution proceedings which should not have been done. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49693 CRP No. 787 of 2023 19. At any rate since this Court is of the considered opinion that the calculation arrived at by the learned trial Judge in the execution proceedings in directing the decree holder to repay the amount is incorrect, necessarily the execution petition should continue for the recovery of the remaining amount. 20. Accordingly, the following: ORDER (i) Civil Revision petition is allowed. (ii) Impugned order dated 04.11.2025 in Execution Case No.1718/2014 is hereby set aside. (iii) As a consequence thereof, the execution petition in Execution Case No.1718/2014 shall continue for the recovery of remaining award amount. (iv) Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE MR