- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32116 RP No. 126 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M REVIEW PETITION NO. 126 OF 2025 BETWEEN: VAKIL GARDEN CITY OWNERS' WELFARE ASSOCIATION, REGISTERED UNDER KARNATAKA SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT, 1960 HAVING ITS OFFICE AT VAKIL GARDEN CITY, THALAGHATTAPURA, KANAKAPURA ROAD, BENGALURU-560 109. REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY MR. SUNIL G.S., S/O. G.S.SUBRAMANYAM. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUN N.K., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SAMPATH A., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI. SREEDHAR M., S/O. MADHVESACHAR M., AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, R/AT NO.2462, HIGH TENSION ROAD, SUGAMYA CORNER, APARTMENT S1, VIJAYANAGAR 2ND STAGE, MYSURU-570 017. 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32116 RP No. 126 of 2025 M.S. BUILDING, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF SOCIETIES 4TH CIRCLE, 4TH FLOOR, 'SHANKAR SOUDHA', 3RD MAIN ROAD, 8TH CROSS, MARGOSA ROAD, MALLESHWARAM, BENGALURU-560 003. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47, RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS. THIS REVIEW PETITION IS LISTED FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.Mallikarjun. N.K., counsel on behalf of Sri. Sampath, for the review petitioner, has appeared in person. 2. The captioned Review Petition is listed today for orders regarding condonation of delay, and it is heard finally. Counsel for the review petitioner submits that there is a delay of 18 days in filing the petition. The reasons for such delay are duly set out in the affidavit accompanying the petition. Hence, this Court may be pleased to take note of the same and condone the delay in the interest of justice. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32116 RP No. 126 of 2025 On the merits of the matter, it is urged that mandamus cannot be issued to a private party. The order dated 09.03.2020 was subsequently modified on 7th July 2020; however, at the disposal of the writ, the modification could not be brought to the Court's notice. Building upon those grounds, it is now contended that additional grounds have arisen which warrant consideration. Accordingly, it is submitted that the order under review requires reconsideration and modification. 3. Heard and perused the papers with care. 4. The following Points would arise for consideration. 1. Whether the review petitioner has shown sufficient cause to condone the delay of 18 days in filing the review petition. 2. Whether the order dated 21.01.2025 passed by this Court in W.P.No.7806/2020 suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. 3. Whether the contention that the order under review failed to consider subsequent developments can furnish a sustainable ground for reopening the order. 5. In the affidavit filed in support of the petition, it is stated that the impugned order was passed without affording a hearing. The petitioner came to know of the order only in - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32116 RP No. 126 of 2025 February 2025, following which the managing committee of the petitioner was notified to deliberate upon the matter. It is further stated that the committee required some time to arrive at a decision regarding the impugned order, and consequently, there has been a delay in filing the petition. The delay, however, is asserted to be bona fide and not intentional. 6. In my considered view, the reasons so accorded do not constitute sufficient cause to condone the delay. It is well-settled that the Court must be satisfied with cogent and acceptable reasons before exercising discretion to condone delay. In the present case, no reasons whatsoever have been furnished to explain the delay of 18 days. Accordingly, the petition seeking condonation of the delay is devoid of merit and is liable to be rejected. On the merits of the case, counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that a writ of mandamus cannot be maintained against the petitioner, who does not fall within the purview of Article 12 of the Constitution. It is further contended that the order dated 09.03.2020 has been subsequently modified, but the said development was not brought to the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:32116 RP No. 126 of 2025 notice of the Court at the time of disposal of the writ petition, and hence the order requires review. The contention urged on behalf of the petitioner is noted with care. The scope of review jurisdiction is narrowly circumscribed. It is well-settled that review is not an appeal in disguise, nor a forum for re-agitating matters already adjudicated. The grounds for review are confined to error apparent on the face of the record, discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, despite due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the party or could not be produced at the time of the original order, or other analogous grounds recognized by law. Moreover, this Court has only directed the third respondent to implement the order. 7. There is no error apparent on the face of the record warranting review. Accordingly, the review petition is devoid of merit and stands rejected. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 37