- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22754 RP No. 518 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO. 518 OF 2024 BETWEEN: SRI NARAYANAPPA S/O CHANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 64 EYARS RA/T SRAJAMMANAHALLI DODDERI HOBLI MADHIGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT – 572 112. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SOMASHEKHARAIAH.R.P, ADVOCATE) AND: SRI MUDDA HANUMAKKA W/O HANUMAKKA SINCE DEAD BY LRS SRI NARAYANAPPA S/O CHANANPPA AGED ABOUT 64 EYARS R/AT SARJAMMANAHALLI DODDERI HOBLI MADHUGIRI TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572 112. …RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAYBE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DT. 28/10/1997 MADE IN RSA NO. 255/1997, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. Digitally signed by CHANDANA B M Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22754 RP No. 518 of 2024 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR ORAL ORDER This review petition is directed against the judgment and decree dated 28.10.1997 passed in RSA No.255/1997, whereby the said appeal preferred by the respondent was allowed by this Court. 2. Heard learned counsel for the review petitioner and perused the material on record. 3. Along with the review petition, petitioner has filed an application I.A.1/2024 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay of 9056 days in preferring the review petition. In this context, it is pertinent to note that the Affidavit filed by the petitioner does not make out valid or sufficient ground for the purpose of seeking condonation of delay and as such, the long, unexplained and inordinate delay and latches of more than 27 years (9056 days) cannot be condoned at the instance of the review petitioner and consequently, I am of the view that there no - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22754 RP No. 518 of 2024 merit in the application I.A.1/2024, which is accordingly hereby dismissed. 4. I have also given my anxious consideration to the submissions on merits made by the learned counsel for review petitioner and perused the material on record including the impugned judgment and decree in the light of the decisions of the Apex Court in (i) Shri Ram Sahu vs. Vinod Kumar Rawat – Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020, (ii) S.Murali Sundaram vs. Jothibai Kannan – (2023) SCC Online SC 185 (iii) S.Madhusudhan Reddy vs. V.Narayana Reddy – Civil Appeal Nos.5503-04/2022 dated 18.08.2022 and the recent judgment of the Apex Court in the case of (iv) Sanjay Kumar Agarwal vs. State Tax Officer –2023 SCC Online SC 1406, wherein it is held as under:- 16. The gist of the afore-stated decisions is that:— (i) A judgment is open to review inter alia if there is a mistake or an error apparent on the face of the record. (ii) 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. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22754 RP No. 518 of 2024 (iii) An error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning, can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the court to exercise its power of review. (iv) In exercise of the jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be “reheard and corrected.” (v) A Review Petition has a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be “an appeal in disguise.” (vi) Under the guise of review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to reagitate and reargue the questions which have already been addressed and decided. (vii) An error on the face of record must be such an error which, mere looking at the record should strike and it should not require any long-drawn process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions. (viii) Even the change in law or subsequent decision/judgment of a co-ordinate or larger Bench by itself cannot be regarded as a ground for review. 5. Upon consideration of the entire material on record, I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment and decree nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, as held in the aforesaid judgments of the Apex Court. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:22754 RP No. 518 of 2024 6. In view of the foregoing reasons, the review petition is devoid of merits and also barred by delay and the same is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE Srl.