- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53453 RP No. 481 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M REVIEW PETITION NO. 481 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT.KASHIBAI KOLUR D/O MALLANAGOUDA, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC (ELC), KSRTC, CHITRADURGA DEPO, CHITRADURGA-577501. 2. SRI. GOLLALAPPA KUMBAR S/O NAGAPPA AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC: MECHANIC (ELC), KSRTC, CHITRADURGA DEPO, CHITRADURGA-577501. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JAVEED S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR, KARNATAKA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, POST BAG-2778, KH ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560027. 2. THE DIVISION CONTROLLER, APPOINTING AUTHORITY, KSRTC CHITRADURGA DIVISION, CHITRADURGA-577 501. …RESPONDENTS Digitally signed by THEJAS KUMAR N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53453 RP No. 481 of 2025 THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47, RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908. THIS REVIEW PETITION IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Javed S., counsel for the review petitioners, appeared in person. 2. The review petition is filed seeking review of the order dated 08.10.2025, passed in writ petition No.10251/2025. 3. Counsel for the review petitioners has urged several contentions. 4. Heard and perused the papers with care. 5. The only point for consideration in this petition is whether the review petitioners has made out a case for reviewing the order dated 8th of October, 2025 and satisfies the criteria of entertaining the same in the review jurisdiction. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53453 RP No. 481 of 2025 6. Order 47 Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for an application for review, which reads as under: 1. Application for review of the judgment.- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved,- (a) by a decree or Order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or Order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or Order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or Order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the Order. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53453 RP No. 481 of 2025 7. The Apex court has repeatedly held in various judgments that the jurisdiction and scope of the review are not that of an appeal and can be entertained only if there is an apparent error on the face of the record. A mere repetition of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered grounds, or minor mistakes of an inconsequential import are insufficient. 8. As is well known, a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by the Court merely for rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final. Under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if a mistake or an error is apparent on the face of the record. An error that is not self-evident and must be detected through a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the Court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC. Suffice it to note that in the exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53453 RP No. 481 of 2025 to be ‘reheard and corrected’. A review petition must be remembered as having a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an ‘appeal in disguise’. 9. Turning to the facts of the case, the review petitioners contend that they are trainees and not Corporation servants. They have urged a ground that they have no relief under the Industrial Disputes Act. They have a grievance about the final order passed by this Court. The grounds raised in the review petition do not fall within the limited scope and ambit of the review jurisdiction. The grounds raised in the review petition seek a re-hearing of the case on merits, which is not permissible in review jurisdiction. The review petition amounts to an appeal in disguise. I find there is no material within the parameters of review jurisdiction to review the order. 10. Resultantly, the review petition is rejected. SD/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19