Karnataka High Court
M.N. Gopal Swamy vs Sri. P. Venkatappa on 9 February, 2017
Author: Ashok B.Hinchigeri
Bench: Ashok B. Hinchigeri
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 9TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2017
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK B. HINCHIGERI
R.P.NO.188 OF 2016
IN
R.S.A.NO.3263 OF 2006
BETWEEN
1. M.N.Gopal Swamy,
S/o.Nanjappa,
Aged about 59 years.
2. N.Veerabhadrappa,
S/o.Nanjappa,
Aged about 58 years.
Both are residing at
Mayasandra Village,
Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District - 562 106. ... Petitioners
(By Sr Sanket M.Yenagi, Advocate)
AND:
1. Sri P.Venkatappa,
S/o.Late Dasappa.
Since deceased by LRs.
1(a) Sri V.Vasanth,
S/o.Late Sri Venkatappa,
Age: 47 years.
1(b) Sri Venkatesh,
S/o.Late Sri Venkatappa.
Age: 44 years.
1(c) Sri Thimmaiah,
S/o.Late Sri Venkatappa,
Age: 40 years.
2
2. Sri Narayanappa,
S/o.Late Dasappa,
Aged about 66 years.
Respondent Nos. 1(a) to 1(c) and 2 are
Residing at Mayasandra Village,
Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore District - 562 107.
3. Smt.Venkatamma,
W/o.Siddappa,
Since dead byLRs.
3(a) Ramakrishna,
S/o.Late Smt.Venkatamma,
Aged about 62 years.
3(b) Venkataramanappa,
S/o.late Smt.Venkatamma,
Aged 58 years.
3(c) Ramaiah,
S/o.Late Venkatamma,
Aged 54 years.
Respondent Nos. 3(a) to 3(c) are
R/at Kodur, Lakkur Hobli,
Malur Taluk,
Kolar District - 567 102.
4. Smt.Elegamma,
W/o.Muniyappa,
Age: 57 years,
R/at Doddamuthyala Post,
Hosur Taluk,
Dharmapuri District,
Tamil Nadu - 600 101.
5. Smt.Sampamma,
W/o.Lingappa,
Age: 46 years,
R/o.Indalabele village,
Attibele Hobli,
Anekal Taluk - 562 106.
6. Smt.Gowramma,
W/o.Veerabhadrappa,
3
Age: 40 years,
R/o.Konasandra Village,
Jigani Hobli,
Anekal Taluk - 562 106.
7. Sri D.Ramanna,
S/o.Late Dasappa,
Since dead by LRs.
7(a) Hemanthkumar,
S/o.Late D.Ramanna,
Age: 47 years.
7(b) Janardhan,
S/o.Late D.Ramanna,
Age: 44 years.
7(c) Girish,
S/o.Late D.Ramanna,
Age: 40 years.
Respondent Nos. 7(a) to 7(c) are
Residing at Konanakunte,
Uttarahalli Hobli,
Bangalore South Taluk,
Bangalore - 560 062.
8. Nanjappa,
S/o.Late Thimmaiah,
Since dead by LRs.
8(a) Mangamma,
W/o.Siddappa,
Aged about 62 years,
R/at Thimmasandra,
Samandur Dhakale,
Kasaba Hobli,
Anekal Taluk - 562 106.
8(b) Mallamma,
W/o.Nanjundappa,
Since dead by LRs.
Respondent Nos. 9 to 13.
9. N.Venkatesh,
S/o.Late Mallamma,
4
Aged about 48 years,
Residing at
Byappanahalli Village,
3rd Cross, Indira Nagara,
Bangalore - 560 022.
10. Sampamma,
D/o.Late Mallamma,
W/o.Chikkanna,
Aged about 45 years,
Residing at
Kothur Village & Post
Hosur Village,
Dharmapuri District,
Tamilnadu - 600 101.
11. Ramesh,
S/o.Late Mallamma,
Aged about 42 years,
Residing at
Nagondahalli Village,
Malur Taluk,
Kolar District - 562 106.
12. Nanjamma,
D/o.Late Mallamma,
W/o.Doddanna @ Junjappa,
Aged about 40 years,
Residing at Muthahalli Village
And Post, Hosur Taluk,
Dharmapuri District,
Tamilnadu - 600 101.
13. Chikkamma,
D/o.Late Mallamma,
W/o.Ramakrishnappa,
Aged about 38 years,
R/at Doddamathahalli Village and
Post, Hosur Taluk,
Dharmapuri District,
Tamil Nadu - 600 101.
14. Thimmaiah,
S/o.Nanjappa,
Aged about 54 years.
5
15. Munivenkatappa,
S/o.Nanjappa,
Aged about 47 years.
Respondent Nos. 14 and 15 are
R/at Mayasandra Village,
Attibele Hobli, Anekal Taluk,
Bangalore Urban District - 562 106. ... Respondents
(By Sri N.Nanjunda Swamy, Advocate for R1 (a) to (c),
R2, R3 (a) to (c), R4 to R6 and R7 (a) to (c):
R9, R11 and R15 served)
This review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC
praying to review the order dated 11.12.2014 passed in RSA
No.3263/2006 on the file of the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka,
Bengaluru.
This petition, coming on for orders, this day, the Court
made the following:
ORDER
The petitioners are seeking the review of the judgment, dated 11.12.2014 passed in R.S.A.No.3263/2006.
2. Sri Sanket M.Yenagi, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the submissions of the petitioners (appellants) that the application under Order 47 Rule 27 is not considered in accordance with law by the first Appellate Court, did not weigh with this Court while disposing of the R.S.A. He submits that having answered the substantial questions of law in favour of the appellants the appeal ought to have been allowed and not dismissed. He submits that the First Appellate 6 Court or this Court ought to have atleast remanded the matter to the Trial Court.
3. Sri N.Nanjundaswamy, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1(a) to 1(c), 2, 3(a) to 3(c), 4 to 6 and 7(a) to 7(c) submits that the delay of 425 days in filing the review petition is not satisfactorily explained. Even assuming that the second petitioner had met with an accident, nothing prevented the first petitioner from approaching this Court on time. He brings to my notice that the petitioners had also filed S.L.P.No.2665/2015. They have withdrawn the said S.L.P. But the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not reserved any liberty to them to file the review petition.
4. My perusal of the affidavit filed in support of the I.A.No.1/2016 reveals that the long delay of 425 days is not cogently explained. The affidavit does not state in which month or in which year, the petitioner No.2 approached his earlier advocate. Further, even assuming that the second petitioner had some difficulty, nothing prevented the first petitioner from filing this review petition within the prescribed time-limit. I.A.No.1/2016 is therefore liable to be dismissed and it is accordingly dismissed. Consequently, the review petition itself is liable to be dismissed. But, even assuming 7 that the delay is condonable, I find it difficult to entertain this review petition. Admittedly, the petitioners filed S.L.P. and they withdrew it; and there is no liberty reserved to the petitioners to file the review petition. Worst of all, the petitioners have not even averred the filing of the S.L.P. in the memorandum of the review petition.
5. An error which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning on points where there may conceivably be two opinions can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record. In saying so, I am fortified by the Apex Court's decision in the case of SATYANARAYAN LAXMINARAYAN BHAVANAPPA vs. MALLIKARJUN THIRUMALE reported in AIR 1960 SC 137.
6. In the case of S.BAGIRATHI AMMAL vs. PALANI ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464, the Apex Court has held that an error contemplated under Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC for review must be such which is apparent on the face of the record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. If an error is so apparent that without further investigation or enquiry, only one conclusion can be drawn in favour of the applicant, the review will lie. Under the guise of review, the parties are not entitled 8 to the rehearing of the same issue. If the issue can be decided just by perusal of the records and if it is manifest that it can be set right, the reviewing of such an order is permissible.
7. I may also usefully refer to the Apex Court's judgment in the case of HARDAS vs. SMT.USHA RANI BANIK AND OTHERS reported in AIR 2006 SC 1634, wherein it is held that neither Section 114 of CPC nor Order 47 postulate the rehearing of the dispute because a party had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could perhaps have argued them more forcibly and/or cited binding precedents to the Court and thereby enjoyed a favourable verdict.
8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of SUBRAMANIAN SWAMY vs. STATE OF TAMILNADU reported in (2014) 5 SCC 75 has held that even an erroneous decision cannot be a ground for the Court to undertake review, as the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought, suffers from any error apparent on the face of the order and in absence of such error, the finality attached to the judgment or order cannot be disturbed. 9
9. Not finding any error much less an error apparent on the face of the records, I dismiss this petition. No order as to costs.
10. Now that the main mater itself is disposed of, nothing survives for consideration of I.A.s. They are dismissed as having become unnecessary.
Sd/-
JUDGE Cm/-