- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9709 RP No. 125 of 2025 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. 125 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. UMASHASHI SINCE DECEASED BY LRS SRI. BHOJA AMIN AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS S/O LATE PIJINA PUJARI 2. SRI. ASHOK KUMAR AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O. SRI. BHOJA AMIN 3. SRI. AMRITH KUMAR AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS S/O. SRI. BHOJA AMIN 4. 4(A) SMT. REKHA PRATHISH SINCE DECEASED BY HER LRS SMT. DEEPTHI PRATHEESH AGED ABOUT 27 YEARS D/O REKHA PRATHISH 4(B) SMT. NIDHI KATPADI PRATHEESH AGED ABOUT 25 YEARS D/O REKHA PRATHISH ALL ARE RESIDING AT NO. 76 BADAGUBETTU VILLAGE Digitally signed by NAGARAJA B M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9709 RP No. 125 of 2025 UDUPI TALUK UDUPI DISTRICT-576 101. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SIDDHARTH SUMAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. MADHAVA BUILDERS (P) LTD UDUPI, BY ITS DIRECTOR SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI S.HEGDE UDUPI-576 101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER AND SPECIAL OFFICER UNDER SECTION-77-A OF THE KLR ACT UDUPI-576 101. 3. SODE MUTT UDUPI BY ITS MANAGER UDUPI-576 101. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND FINAL ORDER DATED 31.01.2025 PASSED IN WP NO.31400/2014 AND ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9709 RP No. 125 of 2025 ORAL ORDER The captioned review petition is filed by the petitioners in WP.No.31400/2014 seeking review of order dated 31.01.2025. 2. On careful examination of the grounds urged in the present review petition, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate the existence of any error apparent on the face of the record warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. It is well settled that the power of review is a limited one and cannot be exercised as if the Court is sitting in appeal over its own judgment. Under the guise of a review, the Court cannot be invited to rehear the matter or re-appreciate the evidence so as to arrive at a different conclusion on merits. A party who has suffered an adverse judgment cannot seek to reopen the entire case by requesting the Court to reassess the factual findings or the evidence already considered. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9709 RP No. 125 of 2025 3. The Hon’ble Supreme 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 laid down under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and that the power of review cannot be exercised to rehear the matter on merits or to substitute a fresh view merely because another view is possible. The jurisdiction under review is extremely limited and is attracted only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important evidence which despite due diligence could not be produced earlier, or for any other sufficient reason analogous to the grounds specified in the provision. 4. In the present case, the review petitioners have not been able to point out any such patent mistake or error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment sought to be reviewed. An error which is not self-evident 1 1 2020 SCC Online SC 896 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9709 RP No. 125 of 2025 and which requires a detailed process of reasoning or re- appreciation of the material on record cannot be termed as an error apparent on the face of the record so as to invoke the jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. A perusal of the grounds urged in the review petition clearly indicates that the petitioners are essentially seeking reconsideration of the findings already recorded by this Court on merits. Such an exercise is impermissible in review jurisdiction. 5. The grounds urged are elaborate and exhaustive, but they essentially amount to an attempt to reopen the case and revisit the conclusions arrived at by this Court in the original proceedings. The review jurisdiction cannot be converted into an appellate jurisdiction to re-examine the correctness of the judgment on merits. 6. In view of the foregoing discussion and having found no error apparent on the face of the record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the review petition - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9709 RP No. 125 of 2025 is wholly devoid of merit. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. SD/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE ALB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 45