- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9708 RP No. 122 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO. 122 OF 2024 BETWEEN: 1. VENKATAMMA W/O LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS 2. NARASHIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS 3. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE PILLAPPA W/O RANGANATHA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS 4. LASKSHMIKANTHA S/O LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 5. GIRISHKUMAR S/O LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS 6. HARISHKUMAR S/O LATE PILLAPPA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS ALL ARE R/AT SOLURU VILLAGE SOLURU HOBLI Digitally signed by AL BHAGYA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9708 RP No. 122 of 2024 MAGADI TALUK-562 127. RAMANAGARA DISTRICT …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. NATARAJ .G, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. GOWRAMMA W/O GOVINDAPPA D/O LATE PUTTANARASHIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS BUGADANAHALLI, SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562123. BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 2. JAYALAKSHMAMMA W/O VENKATESHAPPA D/O LATE PUTTANARASHIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS BUGADANAHALLI, SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK - 562123 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 3. THOLASAMMA W/O RANGASWAMAIAH D/O LATE PUTTANARASHIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT HULUVENHALLI TAVAREKKERE HOBLI MAGADI TALUK - 562127 RAMANAGARA DISTRICT 4. SHARADAMMA W/O NAGARAJU AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS D/O LATE PUTTANARASHIMHAIAH R/AT LAKSHMIPURA DASANAPURA HOBLI - 562123 BANGALORE NORTH TALUK - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9708 RP No. 122 of 2024 5. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE PUTTANARASHIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT KADARANAHALLI VILLAGE DASANAPURA HOBLI - 562123 BANGALORE NORTH TALUK 6. RANGAMMA W/O GOVINDRAJU D/O LATE PUTTANARASHIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS R/AT BUGUDANAHALLI, SOMPURA HOBLI NELAMANGALA TALUK-562123 BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT 7. S.K. NARASIMHAIAH S/O LATE KADARAPPA MAJOR R/AT NO. 197, 397, 3RD CROSS 6TH MAIN, K.S.N.S. LAYOUT SHANAKARANARA (INDUSTRIES WORKERS LAY OUT) MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU-95. PRESENTLY R/AT SOLURU SOLURU HOBLI, MAGADI TALUK-562127. RAMANAGAR DISTRICT 8. JAYAMMA W/O LATE CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS R/AT SOLURU (KEREDODI) MAGADI TALUK-562127 RAMANAGAR DISTRICT 9. NARASIMHAMURTHY S/O LATE CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT SOLURU (KEREDODI) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9708 RP No. 122 of 2024 MAGADI TALUK-562127 RAMANAGAR DISTRICT 10. VENKATACHALA S/O LATE CHIKKANARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT SOLURU (KEREDODI) MAGADI TALUK - 562127 RAMANAGAR DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE BEING PASSED IN RSA NO. 794/2023 DATED 18/12/2023 TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER The captioned review petition is filed by the appellants in RSA.No.794/2023 seeking review of judgment dated 18.12.2023. 2. On a careful examination of the grounds urged in the review petition, this Court is of the considered view that no error apparent on the face of the record is made out. It is well settled that the power of review is not an appellate power in disguise. The Court cannot, under the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9708 RP No. 122 of 2024 guise of review, re-appreciate the evidence or re- adjudicate the matter as though it were hearing the case afresh. A party who has suffered an adverse decree cannot seek reassessment of findings on merits by invoking the limited jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. 3. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramu Sahu (Dead) through LRs and others vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others1 has categorically held that review proceedings must be strictly confined to the parameters prescribed under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. An error which is not self- evident and which requires a long-drawn process of reasoning to be detected cannot be termed as an “error apparent on the face of the record.” In the present case, the review petitioners have failed to demonstrate any such patent or manifest error warranting interference. On the contrary, the grounds urged seek to reopen and revisit the 1 2020 SCC Online SC 896 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9708 RP No. 122 of 2024 findings recorded by this Court on merits, which is clearly impermissible in review jurisdiction. 4. Apart from the absence of any error apparent, there is also a delay of 43 days in filing the review petition. This delay is however condoned accepting the reasons furnished in the affidavit attached to the application filed under Section 5 of Limitation Act. 5. For the foregoing reasons, the review petition is devoid of merit and accordingly stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 44