Case Note & Summary
The Review Petition No.340 of 2019 was filed by Seetharama Shetty (the petitioner/plaintiff) seeking recall of the judgment dated 23.08.2019 passed in W.P.No.30734/2019 (GM-CPC) by the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru. The original writ petition had been disposed of granting the petitioner a period of four months to pay the deficit stamp duty and penalty concerning an 'Agreement for Sale' which was the subject matter of an injunctive suit in O.S.No.295/2013. The respondent (defendant in the suit) had objected to the admission of the agreement into evidence on the ground of inadequate stamp duty, contending that it could not be looked into for any purpose. The learned Single Judge, by the impugned order, allowed the petitioner time to pay the deficit duty and penalty under Sections 33 and 34 of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957. The review petitioner contended that the judgment suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record, but the respondent opposed the review, supporting the original order. The court, after hearing the parties and considering the submissions, found no merit in the review petition. The court held that the review jurisdiction under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal in disguise. The petitioner failed to point out any such error. The court noted that the original order was just and proper, granting time to pay the deficit duty, and no ground for review was made out. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Review - Error Apparent on Record - Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - Review petition seeking recall of judgment granting time to pay deficit stamp duty - Petitioner failed to demonstrate any error apparent on the face of the record - Held that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-argue the case (Paras 1-3). B) Stamp Act - Deficit Stamp Duty - Sections 33, 34 Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 - Agreement for Sale insufficiently stamped - Court granted four months to pay deficit duty and penalty - No error in exercise of discretion - Held that the order was just and proper (Paras 1-2).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment dated 23.08.2019 in W.P.No.30734/2019 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC.
Final Decision
The review petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Error apparent on the face of the record
- Order 47 Rule 1 CPC
- Section 114 CPC
- Karnataka Stamp Act 1957 Sections 33 and 34
- Deficit stamp duty
- Agreement for Sale
