- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32439 RP No. 474 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA REVIEW PETITION NO. 474 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI. MUNIREDDY A, S/O LATE ANJANEYA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 78 YEARS, R/AT CHIKKATHIRUPATHI VILLAGE, LAKKUR HOBLI, MALUR TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-571 512. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SUNIL S RAO, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. LALITHAMMA, D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/AT 14/71-B/10-D, ANNANA NAGAR, HOSUR, TAMIL NADU - 635 109. 2. SMT. SUMA, D/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT 14/71-B/10-D, ANNANA NAGAR, HOSUR, TAMIL NADU - 635 109. 3. SHRI. R. RAJESH, S/O LATE RAMAKRISHNA, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT 14/71-B/10-D, Digitally signed by PADMAVATHI B K Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32439 RP No. 474 of 2025 ANNANA NAGAR, HOSUR, TAMIL NADU-635 109. 4. SMT. BHARATHI, W/O LATE MUNIRAJU, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/ AT MIG NO. 101, AVALAPALLI HOUSE BOARD, BAGALUR ROAD, HOSUR, TAMIL NADU STATE - 635 109. 5. SHRI. PRASAD, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMASWAMY, R/ AT MIG NO. 101, AVALAPALLI HOUSE BOARD, BAGALUR ROAD, HOSUR, TAMIL NADU STATE - 635 109. 6. SHRI. ANAND BABU, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O LATE RAMASWAMY, R/AT DOOR NO. 15, MALAKSHMI NAGAR, NEAR ASTC, HUDCO, HOSUR, TAMIL NADU STATE - 635 109. 7. SMT. JAYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, W/O RAMAMURTHY, R/AT DOOR NO. 106, VENKATESHWARA LAYOUT, OPPOSITE TO DSP OFFICE, DEENAKANIKOTE ROAD, HOSUR, TAMIL NADU STATE - 635 109. 8. SMT. LAKSHMAMMA, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, W/O SRINIVAS, R/AT PLOT NO. 2, JAYALAKSHMI ILLAM, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32439 RP No. 474 of 2025 AMAN NAGAR, HOSUR, TAMIL NADU STATE - 635 109. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. T.V. SURENDRANATH, ADVOCATE) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 29.07.2025 IN WP NO.2805/2024 (GM-CPC) PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT, ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER Petitioner is before the Court seeking review of an order dated 29.07.2025 passed in W.P.No.2805/2024. 2. Heard Sri.Sunil S. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.T.V.Surendranath, learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have perused the material on record. 3. It is the averment in the Review Petition that on 09.07.2010, a Regular Second Appeal in R.S.A.No.1559/2006 filed by the petitioner challenging the decree passed by the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32439 RP No. 474 of 2025 Trial Court and upheld by the First Appellate Court seeking specific performance, ends up in a compromise. In terms of the said compromise, the petitioner had to execute a sale deed pertaining to the suit schedule property within three months. The respondents-decree holders file execution petition in Execution Petition No.29/2022 on 21.11.2022, long after the period of limitation was over. On issuance of notice, the petitioner appears before the Executing Court and file objections to the Execution Petition contending that the said petition filed by the respondents was barred by limitation and was liable to be dismissed. The Executing Court not considering the objections of the petitioner, holds that the Execution Petition was filed well within time. The petitioner then prefers Writ Petition No.2805/2024 which comes to be rejected by the following order: "Petitioner-judgment debtor is before this Court calling in question an order dated 30.10.2023 by which the concerned Court permits initiation of Execution Petition which according to the learned counsel for the petitioner is beyond the period of limitation of 12 years. 2. Heard Sri.Muralidhar B.N., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, Sri.Surendranath T.V., appearing for respondents and have perused the material on record. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32439 RP No. 474 of 2025 3. Petitioner is the judgment debtor which reaches this court in R.S.A.No.1559/2006 having it been disposed on 9.7.2010. The Execution Petition is preferred on 21.11.2022. Limitation to prefer an Execution Petition is admittedly 12 years from the date of the decree which would be 12 years from 9.7.2010. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Execution Petition is preferred on 21.11.2022 which is 132 days beyond the period of limitation. 5. The said submission would run counter to law as when the Nation was engulfed with COVID-19, the Apex Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 in re COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION, had passed certain orders extending the limitation from time to time. The period of limitation that stood extended was for a period of two years from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. If the said period is excluded, the Execution Petition now preferred would be well within limitation. The concerned Court has considering the order passed by the Apex Court, has held that the Execution Petition is maintainable. The order of the concerned Court being in tune with law, there is no warrant to interfere with the said finding. The petition lacking in merit, stands dismissed." 4. This Court followed the judgment of the Apex Court COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION, IN RE1, and held that it was within the period of limitation. The petitioner has now preferred the said Review Petition on the score that it in fact, runs contrary to the judgment rendered by the Apex Court. 1 (2022) 3 SCC 117 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32439 RP No. 474 of 2025 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would reiterate the grounds urged in the petition. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents would refute the submission in contending that no fault can be found with the order of the Court as it is in tune with the observations of the Apex Court in the afore-noted judgment. 6. In the light of the submission and contra submission, what is necessary to be considered is, whether the order passed in W.P.No.2805/2024 requires to be restored on it being a product of an error apparent on the face of the record. It is admitted that the Execution Petition was filed beyond the period of limitation. Whether the extension of limitation by the Apex Court would cover the subject circumstance, is what is necessary to be noticed. The order of the Apex Court in COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION supra, reads as follows: "5. Taking into consideration the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and the impact of the surge of the virus on public health and adversities faced by litigants in the prevailing conditions, we deem it appropriate to dispose of MA No. 21 of 2022 with the following directions: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32439 RP No. 474 of 2025 5.1. The order dated 23-3-2020 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10 : (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] is restored and in continuation of the subsequent orders dated 8-3-2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 5 SCC 452 : (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 40 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 615 : (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 50] , 27-4-2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 17 SCC 231 : 2021 SCC OnLine SC 373] and 23-9-2021 [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 947] , it is directed that the period from 15-3-2020 till 28-2-2022 shall stand excluded for the purposes of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of all judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings. 5.2. Consequently, the balance period of limitation remaining as on 3-10-2021, if any, shall become available with effect from 1-3-2022. 5.3. In cases where the limitation would have expired during the period between 15-3-2020 till 28-2- 2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 1-3-2022. In the event the actual balance period of limitation remaining, with effect from 1-3-2022 is greater than 90 days, that longer period shall apply.” Subsequently, the Apex Court in DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs. TEJPAL2, clarifies that the orders in COGNIZANCE FOR EXTENSION OF LIMITATION, are applicable to those cases where limitation had expired between 15.03.2020 and 28.02.2022. The Apex Court holds as follows: 2 (2024) 7 SCC 433 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32439 RP No. 474 of 2025 "60. Sagufa Ahmed [Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 317, para 17 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 178] construed that the orders passed in Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2020) 19 SCC 10, para 2 : (2021) 3 SCC (Cri) 801] , [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 5 SCC 452 : (2021) 3 SCC (Civ) 40 : (2021) 2 SCC (Cri) 615 : (2021) 2 SCC (L&S) 50] , [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 17 SCC 231, paras 6- 7] , [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2021) 18 SCC 250, para 8] , [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2022) 3 SCC 117, para 5 : (2022) 2 SCC (Civ) 46 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 580 : (2022) 1 SCC (L&S) 501] were intended to benefit vigilant litigants who were prevented due to the pandemic and the lockdown, from initiating proceedings within the period of limitation prescribed by general or special law. We respectfully agree with the view taken in Sagufa Ahmed [Sagufa Ahmed v. Upper Assam Plywood Products (P) Ltd., (2021) 2 SCC 317, para 17 : (2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 178] . Consequently, the benefit of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re [Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re, (2022) 3 SCC 117, para 5 : (2022) 2 SCC (Civ) 46 : (2022) 1 SCC (Cri) 580 : (2022) 1 SCC (L&S) 501] can be availed by the appellants only in a case where the period of limitation expired between 15-3-2020 and 28-2-2022." (Emphasis supplied) In the light of the afore-quoted judgments of the Apex Court, the order rendered by this Court would require reconsideration, as the Apex Court holds the benefit of extension of limitation can be availed by the appellants only in a case where the period of limitation expired between 15.03.2020 and - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32439 RP No. 474 of 2025 28.02.2022. In the case at hand, the period of limitation ends on 09.07.2022, long after the cut-off date by the Apex Court on 28.02.2022. The Execution Petition is preferred on 21.11.2022. Therefore, the benefit of the said order cannot obviously be rendered in favour of the petitioner in the Execution Petition. 7. In that light, the Writ Petition suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record, coming within the parameters of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of KAMLESH VERMA vs. MAYAWATI3, which reads as follows: "20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same 3 2013 (8) SCC 320 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32439 RP No. 474 of 2025 principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275] 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.” (Emphasis supplied) 8. In that light, the following: O R D E R [I] Review Petition is allowed. [II] W.P.No.2805/2024 is restored to file. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32439 RP No. 474 of 2025 List W.P.No.2805/2024 on 16.07.2026 for Further Hearing. Interim order subsisting during the Review Petition shall continue till the next date of hearing. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE CBC List No.: 2 Sl No.: 17