- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34887-DB RP No. 85 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REVIEW PETITION NO. 85 OF 2025 BETWEEN: M/S. KARNATAKA STATE TOURISM DEVELOPMENT CORP. BMTC-TERMINAL, YASHAWANTPUR BENGALURU REP. BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. GURURAJ JOSHI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M. CHIRANJEEVI S/O LATE K. MUNIKRISHNA RAJU AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS CLASS- I CONTRACTOR #1820/1, 21ST CROSS 6TH MAIN ROAD, C BLOCK SAHAKARNAGAR BENGALURU-560 092 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS SECRETARY DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM VIKASA SOUDHA AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-1 Digitally signed by CHANNEGOWDA PREMA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34887-DB RP No. 85 of 2025 3. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF TOURISM EMBASSY BUILDING INFANTRY ROAD AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU-1 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. ASHOK B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R2 & R3) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2025 WA No.1013/2022 (GM-RES) ANNEXURE-A AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34887-DB RP No. 85 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) This review petition is filed seeking for review of the judgment under appeal on several grounds. However, the main ground urged by the learned counsel for the review petitioner at the time of arguments is that, an application was filed in WA No.1013/2022 on 14.10.2024 as IA No.2/2024 seeking to amend the statement of objection filed by the review petitioner in the writ petition adding contentions on merits in the said written objections. 2. It is submitted that the IA had been filed on 14.10.2024 and that objections had also been placed on record to the said IA by respondent No.1 in the writ appeal i.e., the writ petitioner on 22.10.2024. The said fact of filing of objections is recorded on 22.10.2024 itself. It is therefore contended that it was without considering or deciding the IA, the judgment had been rendered. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34887-DB RP No. 85 of 2025 3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submits that non-consideration of the contentions stated in the IA amounted to an error apparent on the face of the record and that such non-consideration has resulted in rendering the judgment open to review. It is therefore contended that the judgment is liable to be reviewed, recalled and the contentions raised in the IA are to be considered on the merits of the matter. 4. We have heard the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. We have also perused the records of the writ appeal which were made available to us. 5. We notice that an application for amendment to the statement of objection filed by the review petitioner in the writ petition had been placed on record on 14.10.2024. Several amendments were sought to be made to the statement of objections including several contentions as to the merits of the matter. Objection to - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34887-DB RP No. 85 of 2025 the said IA was filed by respondent No.1 in the writ appeal, who is the writ petitioner. It was submitted in the statement of objection that the application was not maintainable and that the written objections which were filed in the writ petition could not be subjected to a wholesale amendment at the stage of writ appeal by filing an application for amendment. 6. It is clear that the IA for amendment of the written objections was never allowed by this Court. As a matter of fact, the IA for amendment was not pressed by the review petitioner while arguing the writ appeal as well. It was considering the pleadings, the materials on record in the writ petition and the writ appeal that the judgment came to be passed. 7. Considering the limited scope of a review petition, we are of the opinion that the contention that the application for amendment of statement of objection filed in the writ petition was pending, the writ appeal came to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:34887-DB RP No. 85 of 2025 be disposed of cannot be a good ground for reviewing the judgment, especially in view of the fact that the said IA was not pressed when the matter was heard and taken for judgment. 8. In the above view of the matter and in the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that there are no good grounds made out to review the judgment. The review petition therefore fails, same is accordingly, dismissed. Sd/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE PN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1