- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14108 RP No. 134 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO.134 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT LAKKAMMA W/O GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS, R/O KONIGARAHALLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT – 577 522. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. C.VIJAYAKUMAR, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. PRAGATHI GRAMIN BANK T N KOTE, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522. REPRESENTED BY ITS BRANCH MANAGER. 2. THE RECOVERY OFFICER DEBTS RECOVERY TRIBUNAL, JEEVAN MANGAL BUILDING, NO.4, RESIDENCY ROAD, BENGALURU – 560 025. 3. P. V. SESHAGIRI, S/O VEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, R/O TORE BEERANAHALLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522. 4. MANJANNA S/O KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/O KONIGARAHALLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522. Digitally signed by MADHURI S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14108 RP No. 134 of 2025 5. SADASHIVA S/O GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/O KONIGARAHALLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522. 6. SMT. ANUSUYAMMA, D/O GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/O KONIGARAHALLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522. 7. GANGADHARAPPA, S/O GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, R/O KONIGARAHALLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522. 8. SMT. GEETHA, D/O GOPALAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/O KONIGARAHALLI, CHALLAKERE TALUK, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522. 9. MANJUNATH T N S/O T. NAGARAJA, HINDU MAJOR, R/O MANJUNATHA NILAYA, BASAVESHWARA CIRCLE, OPP AMBHA BHAVANI TEMPLE, KELE GOTE, CHALLAKERE, CHITRADURGA DISTRICT - 577 522. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC. PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 24.06.2024, PASSED IN THE WRIT PETITION NO.691/2023 AND CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS CANVASSED BY THE PETITIONERS AS STATED ABOVE AND GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEF OR RELIEFS AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14108 RP No. 134 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This review petition is directed against the impugned order dated 24.06.2024 passed in W.P.No.691/2023, whereby the said petition preferred by the petitioner was disposed of by this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for the review petitioner 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 Officer –2023 SCC Online SC 1406, wherein it is held as under:- 16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:— - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14108 RP No. 134 of 2025 (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. (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. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:14108 RP No. 134 of 2025 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 SV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 26