- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010675022025 NC: 2026:KHC:45691 RP No. 452 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REVIEW PETITION NO. 452 OF 2025 BETWEEN: 1. SMT. C R JAYALAKSHMI ALI AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS WIF OF SRI B M ALI RESIDING AT NO.50 AND 51 FORMED IN SY.NO.15/4 NEW CORPORATION NO.50/11 BBMP WARD NO.12 PRESENT BBMP WARD NO.43 26TH MAIN ROAD 5TH BLOCK NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU - 560 086 2. SMT B M AYSHA WIFE OF B G LOHITH DAUGHTER OF SMT C R JAYALAKSHMI ALIL AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.34 MERRIAN ROAD TORONTO, ONTARIO, M1K3M7, CANADA REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SMT C R JAYALAKSHMI ALI THE PETITIONER NO.1 HEREIN. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. C SHANKAR REDDY, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI S RAVI AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS Digitally signed by MAHALAKSHMI B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010675022025 NC: 2026:KHC:45691 RP No. 452 of 2025 SON OF LATE R SATYANARAYANA RESIDING AT NO.40 4TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, PIPELINE ROAD, J C NAGAR MAHALAKSHMIPURAM POST, BENGALURU - 560 086 …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION BY THE ORDER DATED 02.09.2025 MADE IN RFA NO.834/2023 ON THE FILE OF THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THE HON'BLE COURT OF KARNATAKA BY INVOKING THE POWERS OF REVIEW AND DISMISS THE SAID APPEAL. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL ORDER 1. The review petitioners seek to challenge the impugned judgment dated 02.09.2025 passed by this Court in RFA No.834/2023 (DEC/INJ), whereby the appeal filed by the respondent (appellant) was allowed. 2. Heard Sri C. Shankar Reddy, learned counsel for the review petitioners and perused the material on record including the impugned order. - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010675022025 NC: 2026:KHC:45691 RP No. 452 of 2025 3. The present review petition is filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC. Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC contemplates as under: 1. Application for review of judgment.— (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved— (a) by a decree or order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. (2) A party who is not appealing from a decree or order may apply for a review of judgment notwithstanding the pendency of an appeal by some - 4 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010675022025 NC: 2026:KHC:45691 RP No. 452 of 2025 other party except where the ground of such appeal is common to the applicant and the appellant, or when, being respondent, he can present to the Appellate Court the case on which he applies for the review. 1[Explanation.—The fact that the decision on a question of law on which the judgment of the Court is based has been reversed or modified by the subsequent decision of a superior Court in any other case, shall not be a ground for the review of such judgment.] 4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja V/s Smt. Nirmala Kumari Choudhury reported in AIR 1995 SC 455 at para 8, held as under: 8. It is well settled that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order 47, Rule 1, C.P.C. In connection with the limitation of the powers of the Court under Order 47, Rule 1, while dealing with similar jurisdiction available to the High Court while seeking to review the orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court, in the case of Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v. Aribam Pishak Sharma, AIR 1979 SC 1047, speaking through Chinnappa Reddy, J., has made the - 5 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010675022025 NC: 2026:KHC:45691 RP No. 452 of 2025 following pertinent observations: (para 3): "It is true there is nothing in Article 226 of the Constitution to preclude the High Court from exercising the power of review which inheres in every Court of Plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or to correct grave and palpable errors committed by it. But, there are definitive limits to the exercise of the power of review. The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeking the review or could not be produced by him at the time when the order was made; it may be exercised where some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record is found; it may also be exercised on any analogous ground. But, it may not be exercised on the ground that the decision was erroneous on merits. That would be the province of a Court of Appeal. A power of review is not to be confused with appellate power which may enable an Appellate Court to correct all manner of errors committed by the subordinate court." Now it is also to be kept in view that in the impugned judgment, the Division Bench of the High Court has clearly observed that they were entertaining the review petition only on the ground - 6 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010675022025 NC: 2026:KHC:45691 RP No. 452 of 2025 of error apparent on the face of the record and not on any other ground. So far as that aspect is concerned, it has to be kept in view that an error apparent on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions. We may usefully refer to the observations of this Court in the case of Satyanarayan Laxminarayan Hegde v. Mallikarjun Bhavanappa Tirumale, AIR 1960 SC 137, wherein, K.C. Das Gupta, J., speaking for the Court has made the following observations in connection with an error apparent on the face of the record: "An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. Where an alleged error is far from self-evident and if it can be established, it has to be established, by lengthy and complicated arguments, such an error cannot be cured by a writ of certiorari according to the rule governing the powers of the superior court to issue such a writ." 5. On plain reading of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and in view of the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Meera Bhanja - 7 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010675022025 NC: 2026:KHC:45691 RP No. 452 of 2025 supra, the power to review is available only when there is an error apparent on the face of the record and not then erroneous decision. The power of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC may be opened inter alia only if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record and a review application cannot be held to be an appeal in disguise. 6. Looking into the judgment of this Court, there is no error apparent on the face of the record. 7. In the light of this settled proposition, this Court is of the considered opinion that the review petition is not within the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC. Accordingly, the review petition deserves to be dismissed as devoid of merits. 8. In the result, I pass the following: ORDER The review petition is dismissed. Pending interlocutory application also stands disposed of. Sd/- ________________________ JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA PHM/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9