- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15243 RP No. 521 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO.521 OF 2025 IN R.F.A.NO.626/2022 (DEC) BETWEEN: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU- 560 001. 2. THE SECRETARY, KARNATAKA SECONDARY EDUCATION EXAMINATION BOARD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU- 560 003. 3. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, NO.12, DISPENSARY ROAD, OPP. KIMS HOSPITAL, KALASIPALYA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA-560 002. 4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, DIET BUILDING, P AND T ROAD, 2ND STAGE, RAJAJINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 010. …PETITIONERS (BY SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, AGA) Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15243 RP No. 521 of 2025 AND: 1. SMT. KAMALAMMA E., D/O MR. EERAHANUMAIAH, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.66, ANJANEYA TEMPLE ROAD, PATTANAGERE, BANGALORE SOUTH, BENGALURU-560 098. 2. THE HEAD MASTER/ HEAD MISTRESS, SRI. PANCHAMUKHI GANAPATHI HIGH SCHOOL, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, TAVAREKERE, BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK-562 130. NEW ADDRESS: KARNATAKA STATE PUBLIC SCHOOL, HONAGAHATTI, MAGADI MAIN ROAD, TAVAREKERE, BANGALORE SOUTH DISTRICT-562130. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. S.B.MUKKANNAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1; VIDE ORDER DATED 14.01.2026, SERVICE OF NOTICE TO R2 IS DISPENSED WITH) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 19.07.2022 IN RFA NO.626/2022 AND ALLOW THE SAID REVIEW PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15243 RP No. 521 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This review petition is directed against the impugned judgment dated 19.07.2022 passed in R.F.A.No.626/2022, whereby the said appeal preferred by the appellant was allowed by this Court. 2. Heard the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the review petitioners and learned counsel for respondent No.1 and perused the material on record. 3. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the review petitioners 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 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15243 RP No. 521 of 2025 Officer –2023 SCC Online SC 1406, wherein it is held as under:- 16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:— (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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:15243 RP No. 521 of 2025 (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. 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 MD List No.: 1 Sl No.: 32