- 1 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010589472026 NC: 2026:KHC:50880 RP No. 500 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M REVIEW PETITION NO. 500 OF 2026 BETWEEN: SRI. NAGARAJ H., S/O. HANUMANNA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, R/AT NO.T5, SHIVAGANGA SILVER LINE, 'A' BLOCK, OPP.KSIT COLLEGE, RAGHUVANAHALLI, BENGALURU-560 062. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. MALLIKARJUNAIAH K.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. M/S. REPCO HOME FINANCE LTD., CORPORATE OFFICE AT ALEXANDER SQUARE, 3RD FLOOR, OLD NO.34/35, NEW NO.2, SARDAR PATEL ROAD, GUINDY, CHENNAI-600 032. 2. SRI. RAMESH, S/O. YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT NO.467/1, SARJAPURA ROAD, TILAK NAGAR, ATTIBELE TOWN, ANEKAL TOWN, BENGALURU-562 107. …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47, RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. Digitally signed by PREMCHANDRA M R Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010589472026 NC: 2026:KHC:50880 RP No. 500 of 2026 THIS REVIEW PETITION IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER: ORAL ORDER Sri.K.S.Mallikarjunaiah., counsel for the review petitioner appeared in person. The review petition is filed to review the order passed by this Court on the 07th day of August 2026. Sri.K.S.Mallikarjunaiah., representing the review petitioner and appearing in person, submits that this Court has the authority to exercise its writ jurisdiction in this case. He argues that the Court did not consider this aspect when disposing of the writ petition in its order dated 07.08.2026, which is why the present review petition has been filed. Urging additional grounds, he submits that the order may be reviewed and the petition may allowed. Heard the arguments and perused the papers carefully. A careful examination of the review petition grounds and arguments shows that the petitioner is dissatisfied with the - 3 - HC-KAR CNR: KAHC010589472026 NC: 2026:KHC:50880 RP No. 500 of 2026 order and seeks a rehearing. However, the law does not permit such a rehearing. If the petitioner disagrees with the order, the proper legal course is to challenge it in the appropriate forum, not to submit a review petition claiming an apparent error on record. The scope of review jurisdiction is narrow and confined to correcting patent errors. In the absence of any such error, the review petition is not maintainable. I have reviewed the order thoroughly and found no error apparent on the face of the record. There is no scope for review. The petition is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (JYOTI M) JUDGE SS List No.: 2 Sl No.: 22