- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36276-DB RP No. 130 of 2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN REVIEW PETITION NO.130 OF 2022 BETWEEN: SHEIK MOHAMMED SIDDIKI SAHEB S/O. ABDUL VAHAB AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS R/AT MALAR VILLAGE UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 226. …PETITIONER (BY SRI SUDESH KUMAR ACHARYA U., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M. S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE LAND TRIBUNAL UDUPI - 576 226 UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 3. SMT. PUSHPA S. SHETTY AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS W/O. DR. SHAYANA SHETTY R/AT MALLAR VILLAGE UDUPI TALUK & DISTRICT-576 226. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI MOHAMMAD JAFFAR SHAH, AGA., FOR R1 &R2) Digitally signed by JUANITA THEJESWINI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36276-DB RP No. 130 of 2022 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE C.P.C., PRAYING TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 05.02.2020 PASSED IN WRIT APPEAL NO.959/2018 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT. THIS REVIEW PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS) This review petition is filed at the hands of the appellant in W.A.No.959/2018, on the ground that the learned Single Judge in the writ petition as well as this Court in the appeal, has only considered that the review petitioner herein had stated in the Application Form that he is a merchant and therefore, on that ground alone the writ petition filed by the private respondent herein was allowed while setting aside the order of the Land Tribunal in case No.LRY-106-277-TRI-4656/1981-82 while negating the decision of the Land Tribunal in recognizing the review petitioner as tenant. Challenging the order passed by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36276-DB RP No. 130 of 2022 learned Single Judge, an intra-court appeal filed by the review petitioner was dismissed on the same ground alone. 2. Learned Counsel for the review petitioner submits that in order to substantiate the contention that the review petitioner is not a merchant, he seeks to produce additional documents along with I.A.No.2/2020 in the review petition. It is pointed out that along with the Interlocutory Application, the review petitioner has produced a copy of the Krishi Passbook and an Endorsement issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Commercial Taxes that the review petitioner has not registered himself as a merchant. Learned Counsel would also submit that the review petitioner seeks to produce a Certificate issued by Mallaru Grama Pachayath stating that the petitioner is residing in the land in question. 3. Learned Additional Government Advocate submits that even if the review petitioner is seeking to produce the documents for the first time before this Court in a review - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36276-DB RP No. 130 of 2022 petition, it cannot be a ground to allow the review petition, since there is limited scope for consideration of the review petition. The review petitioner cannot contend by producing these documents that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. 4. Having regard to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the review petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, this Court is of the considered opinion that the review petitioner has not made out a ground for entertaining the review petition. If the review petitioner is of the opinion that he has got additional documents to prove that he was not a merchant and that he was cultivating the lands in question as on the date when the Application Form was filed, then it may be a case for the review petitioner to contest while challenging the orders passed by this Court. However, the same cannot be considered as a ground made out to hold that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36276-DB RP No. 130 of 2022 5. In that view of the matter, the review petition stands dismissed. 6. In view of dismissal of the main petition, I.A.No.2/2020 filed by the petitioner for production of additional documents does not survive for consideration and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE Sd/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE DL CT:VC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2