- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41529 RP No. 183 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO. 183 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SHRI PRAKASH GANDHI SON OF LATE SRI ANRAJ GANDHI AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS 2. SMT. ASHA GANDHI WIFE OF SHRI PRAKASH GANDHI AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS PRESENTLY BOTH RESIDING AT PARASMANI GOLD CREST APT 401, NO. 16, 5TH MAIN, KG NAGAR, GAVIPURAM, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA PIN – 560 019 …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRADEEP NAYAK, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. K. CH. ANJANEYALU, S/O. SRI GURUSWAMY, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, NO. 9-195-4, MOSQUE STREET, GANAPAVARAM – 522 619, NADENDLA MANDALAM, GUNTUR DISTRICT, ANDHRA PRADESH PIN – 522 619 SAMANTHAPUDI SATHYANARAYAN, SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY HIS LRs 2. SMT.SAMANTHAPUDI UMAMAHESHWARI DEVI W/O LATE SRI SAMANTHAPUDI SATHYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41529 RP No. 183 of 2025 3. SMT.SAMANTHAPUDI NAGA SRAVANTHI D/O LATE SRI SAMANTHAPUDI SATHYANARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS 4. SMT. SAMANTHAPUDI SWATHI D/O LATE SRI SAMANTHAPUDI SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS 5. SAMANTHAPUDI SAI VENKATESH S/O LATE SRI SAMANTHAPUDI SATHYANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS ALL ABOVE MENTIONED LRs RESIDING AT NO. 5-248-12, ML QUARTERS GANAPAVARAM NADENDLA (MD) PALN (DT) ANDHRA PRADESH, PIN – 522 619 6. T. G. VEERAPRASAD, S/O. T. G. MALLIKARJUNA SETTY, AGED ABOUT 72 YEARS, 8-2-324/11 AND 12, GREEN VALLEY, ROAD NO.3, BANJARA HILLS, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA PIN – 500 034 CH. L. NARASIMHA RAO, S/O. SRI KOTESWARARAO, SINCE DEAD, REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES 7. SRI CHANDAVARAM PARDHA SARADHI S/O. LATE SRI CH. L. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS. 8. SRI CHANDAVARAM KODANDA RAMA PRASAD S/O. LATE SRI CH. L. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS. 9. SRI CHANDAVARAM NARENDRA SARMA S/O. LATE SRI CH. L. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41529 RP No. 183 of 2025 10. SMT. CHANDAVARAM RAGHAVA KUMARI D/O. LATE SRI CH. L. NARASIMHA RAO, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS. ALL LRs ABOVE MENTIONED RESIDING AT NO. 18, TATOOLA VARI STREET, PURUSHOTHAPATNA. CHILAKALURIPET. ANDHRA PRADESH PIN – 522 616 11. THE SUB-REGISTRAR, RAMANAGRAM TALUK, RAMANAGARAM PIN – 562 159 12. THE TAHSILDAR, RAMANAGRAM TALUK, RAMANAGARAM PIN – 562 159 13. TMT (INDIA) LIMITED, CORPORATE OFFICE, 2ND FLOOR, 21ST CENTURY COMPLEX, NAMPALLY, HYDERABAD, TELANGANA, PIN – 500 001 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. DWARAKANATH H. S., ADVOCATE FOR R1; SRI. SUNDARASWMAY, ADVOCATE FOR R2, R3, R4 & R5; SRI. BADRI VISHAL, ADVOCATE FOR R6 & R13; R7, R8, R9 AND R10 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED; SRI. NEELAKANTAPPA PUJAR, HCGP FOR R11 & R12) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER LXVII RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO REVIEW ITS FINAL ORDER DATED 02.06.2023 PASSED IN WP NO.7496/2023 (GM-CPC). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41529 RP No. 183 of 2025 ORAL ORDER This review petition is directed against the final order dated 02.06.2023 passed in W.P.No.7496/2023, whereby the said petition preferred by the respondents herein was disposed of by this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. I have given my anxious consideration to 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:— - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41529 RP No. 183 of 2025 (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:41529 RP No. 183 of 2025 4. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting 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. 5. In view of the foregoing reasons, the review petition is devoid of merits and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE BMC List No.: 3 Sl No.: 5