- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6643 RP No. 7 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM REVIEW PETITION NO. 7 OF 2023 BETWEEN: SRI. AMEER SAB S/O LATE ABDUL LATHEEF AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, BEEF MUTTON MERCHANT RESIDING NEAR BOMBAU BUILDING, POOR HOUSE COLONY, TUMKUR TOWN TUMKUR - 572 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K.N. NITISH, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. K.V. NARASIMHAN, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. ABDUL KHALAK AGED ABOUT 69 YEARS, 2. ABDUL SHERIEF AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, 3. MAHAMMED SHERIEF AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 4. JAFAR SHERIEF AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, 5. SHAMIULLA Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6643 RP No. 7 of 2023 AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.1 TO 5 ARE THE SONS OF SMT. JAHARABI R/O HOGEBEELU, 2ND BLOCK MADHUGIRI TOWN, TUMKUR DISTRICT. 6. MAHABOOBI W/O HUSSAIN KHAN AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 7. ZAREENA TAJ W/O USEUF SHARIEF AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESPONDENT NO.6 AND 7 ARE R/O TUMKUR TOWN, TUMKUR - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. A.V. GANGADHARAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 TO R7) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO 1) CALL FOR RECORDS IN R.S.S. NO. 1620/2013 ON THE FILE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6643 RP No. 7 of 2023 ORAL ORDER The present review petition is instituted on the premise that notwithstanding the concurrent declaration by three Courts invalidating the sale deed in favour of the review petitioner, he is still entitled to claim a share in the suit schedule property through Bhatlunnissa, who is the daughter of Jaharabee and the wife of the review petitioner. On the said premise, the review jurisdiction of this Court is invoked. 2. On a careful examination of the grounds urged in the review petition, this Court finds that no error apparent on the face of the record is either pleaded or demonstrated. The scope of review under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure is extremely limited and does not permit re- appreciation of facts or re-opening of issues already adjudicated. The plea now sought to be canvassed proceeds on an entirely different footing and does not expose any patent illegality, manifest error, or mistake apparent on the face of the record in the judgment sought to be reviewed. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:6643 RP No. 7 of 2023 3. Even assuming that the review petitioner, despite the invalidation of the sale deed by the Courts below, claims an independent or derivative right through Bhatlunnissa (plaintiff No.6), the same cannot be agitated in review proceedings. Such a claim, if available in law, can only be worked out by taking recourse to appropriate proceedings in a manner known to law and not by invoking the narrow and circumscribed review jurisdiction of this Court. 4. In the absence of any error apparent on the face of the record, which is a sine qua non for entertaining a review petition, this Court finds no merit in the present petition. 5. Accordingly, the review petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE HDK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 14