- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20168 RP No. 560 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K REVIEW PETITION NO. 560 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SRI RAJAPPA S/O. JAJUR RANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, HOTEL KEEPER, R/O. SANTHEBENNUR VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 522 …PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAVINDRA V.S. HOLLA, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI M MURUGENDRAIAH S/O. LATE. JAYADEVAIAH, 72 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURIST AND MANAGER OF THE JAYADEVAIAHNAVARA DHARMA CHATRA, RESIDENT OF SANTHEBENNUR VILLAGE, CHANNAGIRI TALUK, DAVANGERE DISTRICT-577 522 …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION.114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE FINAL ORDER PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RSA NO.237/2019 (INJ) DATED 29.10.2025 BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20168 RP No. 560 of 2025 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL ORDER This review petition is directed against the judgment dated 29.10.2025 passed by this Court in RSA No.237/2019, wherein this Court dismissed the second appeal by the review petitioner. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri. Ravindra V. S. Holla for review petitioner and perused the entire materials on record. 3. It is the primary contention of the review petitioner that, as per Ex.P19-Will which is based on filing the suit for injunction with respect to the suit schedule property as stated that there is no boundaries or measurement and identification of the property. Further, Ex.D5 and 6 demonstrated that the review petitioner/plaintiff is in possession of the suit schedule property. These aspects of the matter was not considered by this Court while passing the impugned judgment. As such, he prays to review the impugned judgment. 4. On perusal of the impugned judgment passed by this Court in the second appeal, it is seen that the review - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20168 RP No. 560 of 2025 petitioner has argued at length on the aforesaid aspects of the matter and the same have been dealt with by this Court in detail. 5. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Agarwal Vs. State Tax Officers reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1406 by referring the case of Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 25, as held in paragraph 10 as under: "10. It is also well-settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by this Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final, and departure from that principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so." 6. Further, in the said judgment, the Hon'ble Apex Court by referring Parsion Devi V. Sumitri Devi reported in (1997) 8 SCC 715 as held in paragraph 11 as under: "Under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC a judgment may be open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error 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 hardly be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:20168 RP No. 560 of 2025 said to be an error apparent on the face of the record justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC. In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected”. A review petition, it must be remembered has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise”.” 7. Applying the above dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that there is no apparent error on the face of the record/order dated 19.08.2025 passed by this Court in CCC No.1357/2024. 8. Accordingly, the review petition is devoid of merits and the same is dismissed. 9. In view of dismissal of the petition, pending I.As., if any, do not survive for consideration and the same are disposed of. SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE CR/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1