Case Note & Summary
The case involves a review petition filed by the legal representatives of the original appellant (since deceased) against a judgment dated 23.04.2021 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in W.A. No. 898/1993. The petitioners, who were respondents in the writ appeal, sought review under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), praying for a fresh hearing and disposal of the appeal. The background of the dispute pertains to land bearing Survey No. 20/6 in Block No. 6 of Mosarahalli, involving a claim by the original appellant Dakhya Naik and his legal representatives against respondent Javarappa and state authorities. The review petition was heard and reserved for orders on 29.11.2024, and the Division Bench pronounced the order on 07.01.2025. The court, in its analysis, reiterated the settled principle that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used as an appellate forum. The petitioners failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record, and the court found no merit in the review petition. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 CPC - The review petitioners sought review of a judgment in a writ appeal, alleging errors in appreciation of evidence and law. The court held that review is not an appeal in disguise and that an error must be manifest on the face of the record to warrant review. The court found no such error and dismissed the petition. (Paras 1-3)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the judgment dated 23.04.2021 in W.A. No. 898/1993 suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
Final Decision
Review Petition No. 270 of 2021 is dismissed.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- error apparent on face of record
- scope of review under CPC
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (01) 22
Review Petition No. 270 of 2021
S Sunil Dutt Yadav, Shivashankar Amarannavar
Sri Kantharaj H, Senior Advocate for Sri R Gopal, Advocate for petitioners; Sri V Lakshminarayana, Senior Advocate for Sri Sanjeev B L, Advocate for R1; Sri G S Aruna, HCGP for R2 and R3
Dakhya Naik (since dead by LRs: Balaram Naik, Bhoopal D, Bhagya Bai, Hanumantha Naik, Laxmi Bai)
Sri Javarappa, The Assistant Commissioner Shimoga Sub-Division, The Deputy Commissioner Shimoga District
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Review petition against judgment in writ appeal concerning land dispute
Remedy Sought
Review of judgment dated 23.04.2021 in W.A. No. 898/1993 and fresh hearing of the appeal
Filing Reason
Alleged errors in the judgment of the writ appeal
Previous Decisions
Judgment dated 23.04.2021 in W.A. No. 898/1993
Issues
Whether the judgment dated 23.04.2021 suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that the judgment in W.A. No. 898/1993 contains errors apparent on the face of the record.
Ratio Decidendi
Review jurisdiction under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used as an appeal. The petitioners failed to demonstrate any such error.
Judgment Excerpts
This review petition is filed by petitioners (respondent Nos. 3-(b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) in W.A. No. 898/1993) seeking review of judgment dated 23.04.2021 passed in W.A. No. 898/1993 and consequently to hear and dispose of W.A. No. 898/1993 afresh.
Procedural History
The review petition was filed under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 CPC against the judgment dated 23.04.2021 in W.A. No. 898/1993. It was heard and reserved for orders on 29.11.2024, and pronounced on 07.01.2025.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 114, Order 47 Rule 1
