Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, B Keerthivarma Shetty, filed writ petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking a declaration that the order dated 04.02.2008 passed in W.P.No.26788/2005 by the High Court of Karnataka was without jurisdiction and therefore not binding on him. He also sought to quash the order dated 08.10.2010 passed in Misc. Case Nos.37, 54, 70/2008, Misc. Case No.8/2009 and 2/10 on the file of the I Addl. District Judge, D.K. Mangalore, and the Mokthesari Sannad dated 24.01.2012 issued by respondent No.9 (Mangalore Taluk Jain Mathasthapana Committee). The respondents included the State of Karnataka and several individuals. The petitioner was represented by Sri K Sanath Kumar Shetty, while the respondents were represented by various advocates. The court, presided over by Justice A S Bopanna, reserved the petitions for orders and pronounced them on 02.09.2014. The court noted that the petitioner was essentially seeking a review of the earlier order dated 04.02.2008. The court held that a review is not maintainable merely because the petitioner believes the order is erroneous; there must be an error apparent on the face of the record. The court found no such error and dismissed the review petition. The court also upheld the earlier order and found no jurisdictional error, as the earlier writ petition had been disposed of on merits after hearing all parties. The court dismissed the writ petitions.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Review - Maintainability - Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC - Error Apparent on Face of Record - The petitioner sought review of an earlier order passed in a writ petition, claiming it was without jurisdiction. The court held that a review is not maintainable merely because the petitioner believes the order is erroneous; there must be an error apparent on the face of the record. The court found no such error and dismissed the review petition. (Paras 1-5) B) Religious Trust - Mokthesari Sannad - Jurisdiction - The petitioner challenged the Mokthesari Sannad issued by respondent No.9 and the order of the I Addl. District Judge, D.K. Mangalore. The court upheld the earlier order and found no jurisdictional error, as the earlier writ petition had been disposed of on merits after hearing all parties. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the order dated 04.02.2008 in W.P.No.26788/2005 is without jurisdiction and whether the review petition is maintainable.
Final Decision
Writ petitions dismissed. Review not maintainable as no error apparent on face of record. Earlier order upheld.
Law Points
- Review jurisdiction
- Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC
- Error apparent on face of record
- Jurisdictional error
- Maintainability of review
