- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7454 RP No. 173 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO. 173 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI H K LAKSHMINARAYANA, AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS, S/O. LATE KRISHNAIAH, RESIDING AT BELAGADY, BINTRAVALLI VILLAGE, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKAMAGALUR DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 577 126. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.LAXMI NARAYAN N. HEGDE, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, REVENDE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 577 101. 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, CHIKKAMAGALURU TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 577 101. 4. THE TAHASHILDAR, Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7454 RP No. 173 of 2025 KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT, KARNATAKA - 577 126. 5. SMT VIMAL LOUISE, W/O P.T.LOUISE, AGED ABOUT 82 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.113, MARAKADA VILLAGE, DAKSHIN KANNAD, MANGALURU TALUK, KARNATAKA - 575 015. 6. SRI THOMAS JOSEPH, S/O P.T.JOSEPH, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, RESIDING AT BINTRAVALLI VILLAGE, BAYADI POST, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALUR DISTRICT - 577 126. 7. SRI NITIN KUMAR M.N, S/O NARAYAN POOJARI, AGED MAJOR, RESIDING AT MAKKI MANE, SOMLAPUR VILLAGE, MARITHOLLU GRAMA PANCHAYATI, KACHKALLU POST, KOPPA TALUK, CHIKKAMAGALURU DISRICT - 577 126. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.KIRAN KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1 TO R4) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION.114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION BY REVIEWING THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2025 PASSED IN WP NO.30262/2024 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7454 RP No. 173 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER Under the guise of a review petition, new facts are pleaded by way of grounds. A review petition cannot be maintained by pleading fresh facts which were not urged in the writ petition. Therefore, the grounds urged in the review petition, even if accepted in entirety, do not indicate any error apparent on the face. This is a clear sign to not grant any indulgence under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the CPC. This Court has also noticed that this review petition is not filed by the counsel who had argued W.P.No.30262/2024. The review petition is devoid of merit and accordingly, stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK