- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31822 RP No. 11 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO. 11 OF 2023 BETWEEN: 1. KEMPAMMA @ SAKAMMA W/O. LATE BALLARYGOWDA @ DODDAMALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 80 YEARS, SINCE DEAD BY LRS T.M.BALLARI GOWDA S/O. LATE BALLARIGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS CHIKKATHAYAMM W/O. LATE T.M.BALLARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, 2. PRAKASH S/O. LATE T.M. BALLARIGOWDA SINCE DECEASED BY LRS. 2(A) GEETA A.R. W/O. LATE PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, 2(B) BHUVAN S/O. LATE PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER GEETHA A.R. W/O LATE PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. 2(C) GAGAN S/O. LATE PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 11 YEARS, SINCE MINOR REPRESENTED BY NATURAL GUARDIAN MOTHER Digitally signed by MOHANKUMAR B SHELAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31822 RP No. 11 of 2023 GEETHA A.R. W/O LATE PRAKASH AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS. (ALL ARE R/O. TADAGAVADI VILLAGE, ARAKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA ATLUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571438.) 3. MAHESH S/O. LATE T.M. BALLARIGOWDA AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS, 4. YASHODAMMA D/O. LATE T.M.BALLARIGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS 5. T.M.PUTTEGOWDA S/O. LATE BALLARIGOWDA @ DODDAMALLEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, ( ALL ARE R/O TADAGAVADI VILLAGE, ARAKERE HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT- 571 438) APPELLANT NO.1 WAS DEAD LRS ARE ALREADY ON RECORD … PETITIONERS (BY SRI A.P.PULAKESHI, ADVOCATE FOR P1,P2(A),P3 TO P5, P2(B AND C) ARE MINORS REPRESENTED BY R2(A)) AND: 1. NINGAMMA W/O. LATE KEMPEGOWDA AGED MAJOR. 2. PUTTEGOWDA S/O. LATE KEMPEGOWDA AGED MAJOR. 3. VASANTHA D/O. LATE KEMPEGOWDA W/O. MALLEGOWDA AGED MAJOR 4. MANGALA D/O. LATE KEMPEGOWDA AGED MAJOR SINCE DECEASED BY LRS - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31822 RP No. 11 of 2023 4(A) MOHANA MALLU D/O. LATE KEMPEGOWDA AGED MAJOR. 4(B) POOJA D/O. LATE KEMPEGOWDA REPRESENTED BY MATERNAL GRAND MOTHER RESPONDENT-1 (ALL ARE R/O. T.M. HOSUR, K. SHETTIHALLI HOBLI, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571 438 … RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1(A) R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO RE-LOOK AND REVIEW THE COMMON JUDGMENT DATED 02.08.2022 PASSED IN RSA NO.1312/2013 AND RSA NO.1313/2013 SO FAR AS TO SUIT ITEM NOS.2,3,7,8,9 AND 10 AND PASS SUITABLE JUDGMENT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) This review petition is filed to review the order dated 02.08.2022 passed in RSA.Nos.1312/2013 and 1313/2013. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31822 RP No. 11 of 2023 2. Perused the grounds urged in the review petition. On examination of the grounds, more particularly ground No.8, this Court is of the view that under the garb of review, petitioners are intending to reargue the matter on merits. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no error apparent is made out. 3. It is a trite law that the Court cannot under the cover of review arrogate to itself the power to decide the case afresh. Parties who have suffered a decree cannot persuade to reassess the evidence. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ramu Sahu (Dead) Through LRs and others .vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat and Others1 has clearly held that review proceedings has to be strictly confined to the ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. 4. In the present review petition, the review petitioners have failed to point out mistake apparent on the face of the record. An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can 1 2020 SCC Online SC 896 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31822 RP No. 11 of 2023 hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by invoking the power of Order XLVII of CPC. 5. Accordingly, review petition stands dismissed on delay as well as on merits. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, stand disposed of. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE CA CT:GSM List No.: 19 Sl No.: 1