- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43880-DB RP No. 15 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 31ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA REVIEW PETITION NO. 15 OF 2023 IN RFA NO.1420 OF 2013 (SP) BETWEEN: B.S. HARISH SON OF B P SHIVALINGE GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS CONTRACTOR, RESIDING AT BANDAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN-573 201. REPRESENTED BY HIS SPA HOLDER C H PRADEEP. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE) AND: K.S. GOPAL KRISHNA SETTY SON OF (LATE) SRINIVASA SETTY AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS AND RESIDING AT MG ROAD, CHIKKAMAGALUR-577 101. …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT MAY KINDLY BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE Digitally signed by KORLAHALLI BHARATHIDEVIKRISHNACHARYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43880-DB RP No. 15 of 2023 JUDGMENT DATED 8TH OF SEPTEMBER 2022 PASSED IN RFA NO. 1420 OF 2013 AND CONSEQUENTIALLY RESTORE THE APPEAL BACK TO FILE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANT BANERJI and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA) This review petition is filed by the plaintiff- respondent under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC, to review the judgment and decree dated 8th September 2022, passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in RFA.No.1420/2013. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the respondent herein filed an appeal in RFA.No.1420/2013 challenging the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2013, passed in O.S.No.41/2008, on the file of Senior Civil Judge, Chikmagalur. The said suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of an agreement of sale dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43880-DB RP No. 15 of 2023 12.11.2007 and the said suit was decreed by the judgment and decree dated 11.06.2013. Same was challenged in RFA.No.1420/2013. 3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner contended that before the trial Court, the respondent has not taken a contention that the suit was hit by the provisions of Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988. For the first time, such defence was taken in this appeal. This Court reversed the judgment passed by the trial Court mainly on that ground. It is a mistake apparent on the face of the record. He relies on the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Biraji alias Brijraji and another -vs- Surya Pratap and others1. 4. Learned counsel for the review petitioner further submits that he was instructed by the petitioner to file Vakalath in RFA.No.1420/2013, however, due to inadvertence, he could not file Vakalath in RFA and argue 1 AIR 2020 SC 5483 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43880-DB RP No. 15 of 2023 the matter on behalf of the respondent. He filed an application seeking to recall the judgment, but the said application came to be rejected. Hence, he filed this review petition. There are sufficient reasons to review the judgment passed in RFA.No.1420/2013 and hence prayed to allow the petition. 5. Upon perusal of the materials on record, it is evident that the reasons are stated in paragraph No. 8 of the judgment passed by this Court. The evidence of the plaintiff (PW-2) shows that his father intended to purchase the property and had the agreement of sale executed in the name of PW-2. The said evidence recorded before the trial Court reveals that it was, in fact, a benami transaction and prohibited in law. It appears that, such evidence was recorded without any objection from the plaintiff, regarding the absence of specific pleadings. When such materials are on record, the Courts cannot approve an illegal transaction by granting the equitable relief of specific performance. Hence, the judgment and decree - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43880-DB RP No. 15 of 2023 passed by the trial Court was reversed, and an alternative relief was granted in the appeal. 6. The observations made in the case of Biraji alias Brijraji (referred supra) were in a different context and do not support the contention of the review petitioner. 7. The second ground urged by the learned counsel for the review petitioner that, due to inadvertence, he had not filed the Vakalath for the petitioner and hence could not argue the appeal, does not constitute a valid ground for review of the judgment. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal -vs- State Tax Officer2, referred to the judgment of Constitution Bench in the case of Beghar Foundation -vs- K.S.Puttaswamy. The gist of the judgment of Constitution Bench in the aforecited judgment are stated at Para-16, which are as below : 2 (2024) 2 SCC 362 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43880-DB RP No. 15 of 2023 " 16.1. A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. 16.2. 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. 16.3. 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. 16.4. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. 16.5. A review petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”. 16.6. Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. 16.7. 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. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:43880-DB RP No. 15 of 2023 16.8. Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a coordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review." 9. In this case, by way of review petition, the appellant intends to hear the appeal, that is not permissible. Hence, both the grounds raised by the petitioner are untenable for seeking a review of the judgment. There is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. Consequently, the review petition does not merit consideration. Hence, Review Petition is rejected. Registry is directed to send a copy of this order to the trial Court. Sd/- (JAYANT BANERJI) JUDGE Sd/- (UMESH M ADIGA) JUDGE bk/ List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1