- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49541 RP No. 250 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO.250 OF 2025 BETWEEN: ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION CENTRE (DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL) BENGALURU, III FLOOR, EAST WING KHANIJA BHAVANA, RACE COURSE ROAD BENGALURU - 560 001 BY ITS DIRECTOR …PETITIONER (BY SMT.. B V VIDYULATHA, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.MEENAKSHI K.M. AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS W/O LATE V.GOPINATH R/AT NO.118, 3RD MAIN 7TH CROSS, MARUTHI NAGARA YELAHANKA, BENGALURU - 560 064 2. M/S VGR PROPERTIES BEING A REGISTERED PARTNERSHIP FIRM ITS PLACE OF BUSINESS AT NO.34 GROUND FLOOR, SY.NO.4/5B PATEL LAYOUT, 10TH CROSS BALAGERE ROAD, VARTHUR BENGALURU - 560 087 REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNERS MR H.V.CHANDRASHEKAR AND MR.PAVAN G Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49541 RP No. 250 of 2025 3. MR H.V.CHANDRASHEKAR AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS S/O H V VENUGOPAL REDDY PARTNER M/S VGR PROPERTIES HAVING OFFICE AT NO.34, GROUND FLOOR SY NO.4/5B, PATEL LAYOUT 10TH CROSS, BALAGERE ROAD VARTHUR, BENGALURU - 560 087 4. MR. PAVAN G AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS S/O LATE V GOPINATH PARTNER M/S VGR PROPERTIES HAVING OFFICE AT NO.34 GROUND FLOOR, SY NO.4/5B PATEL LAYOUT, 10TH CROSS BALAGERE ROAD, VARTHUR BENGALURU - 560 087 5. MS PAVANASHREE G AGED ABOUT 21 YEARS D/O LATE V GOPINATH R/AT BVG NILAYA OPPOSITE KK ENGLISH SCHOOL VARTHUR, GUNJUR MAIN ROAD BENGALURU - 560 087 …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAYANA TARA BG.,ADVOCATE FOR R.1; SRI.RAVI KUMAR T.K., ADVOCATE FOR R.2; R.3 TO R.5 ARE SERVED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 22.07.2024 IN W.P.NO.11075/2024 (GM-RES) BY EXPUNGING PARAGRAPH NO.8 OF THE SAID ORDER AND ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49541 RP No. 250 of 2025 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING - INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This review petition is directed against the impugned order dated 22.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.11075/2024, whereby the said petition filed by the 1st respondent was disposed of by this Court. 2. Along with the review petition, petitioner has filed an application I.A.1/2025 seeking condonation of delay of 303 days in preferring the review petition which was filed on 20.06.2025. 3. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the material on record. 4. A perusal of the Affidavit filed in support of the application I.A.1/2025 will indicate that it is contended that though the review petitioner came to know about the final order dated 22.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.11075/2024 during the 2nd week of January, 2025 itself, due to procedural and administrative delays, the review petition could be filed only on 20.06.2025. In my considered opinion, the vague, omnibus and bald averments made in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49541 RP No. 250 of 2025 Affidavit filed in support of I.A.1/2025 cannot be said to constitute valid or sufficient grounds / cause established by the petitioner to seek condonation of long and inordinate delay of 303 days in filing the present review petition and consequently, I.A.1/2025 is liable to be rejected. 5. I have given my anxious consideration to the merits of the review petition and considered 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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49541 RP No. 250 of 2025 (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. (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. 6. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49541 RP No. 250 of 2025 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. 7. Insofar as the contention urged by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that in the light of sub-Rule(3) of Rule 28 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Centre, Bangalore, Rules, 2012, the writ petitioner (1st respondent herein), who is the claimant before the Centre is liable to deposit the costs of arbitration payable by the respondents 2 to 5 herein (respondents before the petitioner - Centre) and the order of this Court deserves to be reviewed is concerned, in the absence of any material to indicate that the petitioner – Centre has taken necessary steps against the respondents 2 to 5 in terms of Rule 3-A and Rule 4 coupled with the fact that the respondents 2 to 5 are still continuing to participate in the arbitration proceedings, the 1st respondent herein (writ petitioner) cannot be said to be liable to deposit the costs of arbitration, which have not been deposited by respondents 2 to 5 herein and as such, the said contention urged by the learned counsel for the review petitioner cannot be accepted. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49541 RP No. 250 of 2025 8. In view of the foregoing reasons, the review petition as well as application I.A.1/2025 are devoid of merit and the same are hereby dismissed. SD/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE NBM/SRL List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11