- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9857 RP No. 392 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA REVIEW PETITION NO. 392 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT. K.V.MALATHI W/O LATE S.K.SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 85 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.454 1ST ‘A’ RISHAB BLESSINGS IDEAL HOME TOWN NEAR PETROL BUNK RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098 REPRESENTED BY HER GPA HOLDER SMT. MRUDULA S. S., D/O LATE S.K.SHIVALINGAIAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.454, 1ST ‘A’ RISHAB BLESSINGS IDEAL HOME TOWN NEAR PETROL BUNK RAJARAJESHWARINAGAR BENGALURU – 560 098. …PETITIONER (BY SRI PRADEEP NAIK K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT. VIJAYALAKSHMI D/O LATE SRI K.S.R RAO Digitally signed by SANJEEVINI J KARISHETTY Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9857 RP No. 392 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS R/AT NO.102, JIVANADI APARTMENTS 1ST MAIN, TATA SILK FARM BENGALURU – 560 004. 2. SRI B.S.SHEKAR S/O LATE R.SHANKARNARAYANA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS R/AT NO.21/1, RANGARAO ROAD SHANKARAPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 004. 3. SRI B.S.RAGHAVAN S/O LATE R.SHANKARANARAYANA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS R/AT NO.202, 16TH MAIN BSK 2ND STAGE, NEAR BDA COMPLEX BENGALURU – 560 070. 4. KARNATAKA RAITHARA VASATHI NIRMANA SAHAKARA SANGHA NIYAMITHA (A SOCIETY REGISTERED UNDER THE SOCIETIES REGISTRATION ACT) NO.92, 1ST FLOOR, BULL TEMPLE ROAD CHAMARAJAPETE, BENGALURU – 560 004 REPRESENTED BY ITS PRESIDENT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. NAYANA TARA B. G., ADVOCATE FOR R1, R2 AND R3; SRI H.C.SHANKAR, ADVOCATE FOR R4) THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CPC READ WITH ARTICLE 215 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDERS DATED 21.07.2025 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9857 RP No. 392 of 2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.2030/2023, RECONSIDER THE CASE AFRESH. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA ORAL ORDER The subject petition is preferred by respondent No.1 in W.P.No.2030/2023, disposed on 21.07.2025, on the score that this Court while answering the challenge to an order dated 02.01.2023, passed by the concerned Court allowing an application filed under Order I Rule 10(2) r/w. Section 151 of the CPC had in fact, entered upon the merit of the matter. 2. Heard Sri Pradeep Naik K., learned counsel for petitioner, Smt. Nayana Tara B.G., learned counsel for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 3 and Sri H.C.Shankar, learned counsel for respondent No.4. 3. While it is not so to safeguard the interest of the petitioners, I deem it appropriate to observe that the concerned Court shall not be swayed by the observations made in the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9857 RP No. 392 of 2025 course of the order. The concerned Court shall answer the issue on its merit, without being influenced by any of the observations made in the course of the order. This would suffice as a protection to the petitioners, failing which, answering the subject review petition would be hearing the petition all over again by sitting as an appellate Court to the order passed by this Court, which would run contrary to the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verma v. Mayawati1, wherein, the Apex Court has held as follows: "20. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute: 20.1. When the review will be maintainable: (i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him; (ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record; (iii) Any other sufficient reason. The words “any other sufficient reason” have been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki [(1921-22) 49 IA 144 : (1922) 16 LW 37 : AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius [AIR 1954 SC 526 : (1955) 1 SCR 520] to mean “a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule”. The same principles have 1 (2013) 8 SCC 320 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9857 RP No. 392 of 2025 been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. [(2013) 8 SCC 337 : JT (2013) 8 SC 275] 20.2. When the review will not be maintainable: (i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications. (ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import. (iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case. (iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice. (v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected but lies only for patent error. (vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review. (vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched. (viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition. (ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived. 21. Keeping the above principles in mind, let us consider the claim of the petitioner and find out whether a case has been made out for interference exercising review jurisdiction.” (Emphasis supplied) - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:9857 RP No. 392 of 2025 In that light, the petition stands disposed with the aforesaid observation. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE NVJ List No.: 3 Sl No.: 31 CT:SS