Karnataka High Court
M/S Binary Semantics Limited vs M/S Sonata Software Limited on 19 September, 2022
R.P.No.219/2017
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.RACHAIAH
REVIEW PETITION No.219/2017
IN
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.885/2010
C/W
REGULAR FIRST APPEAL CROB NO.24/2012
BETWEEN:
1. M/S.BINARY SEMANTICS LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE
PLOT NO.38, SECTOR 18
GURGAON- 122 015
REP. BY ITS COMMERCIAL MANAGER
AND AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI B.S.JAYARAM
2. M/S.BINARY SEMANTICS LTD.
20, 2ND FLOOR, ARIHANTH COMPLEX
1ST CROSS, CKC GARDEN
(OFF.MISSION ROAD)
BANGALORE- 560 027
REP. BY ITS AUTHORIZED SIGNATORY
SRI B.S.JAYARAM ...PETITIONERS
(BY SRI ASHOK.G.V., ADVOCATE)
AND:
M/S.SONATA SOFTWARE LIMITED
CORPORATE OFFICE
1ST FLOOR, APS TRUST BUILDING
BULL TEMPLE ROAD
N.R.COLONY
R.P.No.219/2017
2
BANGALORE- 560 019
REP. BY ITS CHAIRMAN
AND MANAGING DIRECTOR ...RESPONDENT
(BY SRI AJESH KUMAR.S., ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII
RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW
THE JUDGMENT DATED 13.02.2017 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN
RFA NO.885/2010 CONNECTED WITH RFA CROB.NO.24/2012.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR HEARING THIS
DAY, K.S.MUDAGAL J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
"Whether the judgment of this Court in RFA No.885/2010 connected with RFA Crob.No.24/2012 requires to be reviewed"? is the question involved in this case.
2. The review petitioners filed the said appeal challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court for recovery of Rs.18,55,281.30. This Court on considering the entire materials on record and on hearing the parties partly allowed the appeal and modified the decree for recovery of Rs.8,63,000/-. Similarly allowed cross-objection in part awarding interest at 9% per annum from the date of the suit.
R.P.No.219/20173
3. The review petitioners are seeking review of the judgment on the ground that there is error apparent on the face of the record. According to the petitioners the apparent error is not giving deduction to the payment allegedly made by the appellant under Exs.D15 and D16 (1,00,000 + 2,60,000= 3,60,000).
4. What is the scope of the review and what is the error apparent on face of the record was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.Madhusudhan Reddy Vs V.Narayana Reddy1. In para 19 of the said judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court referring to the judgment in Kamalesh Verma V. Mayawati and Others [(2013) 8 SCC 320] laid down the principles for exercising review jurisdiction which were summarized as follows:
"20.1. When the review will be maintainable:
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
The words "any other sufficient reason" has been interpreted in Chajju Ram vs. Neki, and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos vs. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors. to mean "a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to 1 2022 SCC Online SC 1034 R.P.No.219/2017 4 those specified in the rule". The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors.
20.2. When the review will not be maintainable:-
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived."
(Emphasis supplied)
5. Reading of the above judgment shows that the review petition is not maintainable for repetition of old arguments or cannot equate with the original hearing of the case. It further shows that error apparent on the face of the record does not mean the error which has to be fished out and searched.
R.P.No.219/20175
6. The petitioner claims that this Court did not deduct a sum of Rs.3,60,000/- paid under Exs.D15 and D16 and the trial Court had given deduction to the same. He further submits that this Court in para 21 of the judgment this Court erroneously held that the trial Court had rejected those documents.
7. Perusal of para 21 of the judgment does not indicate that this Court held that the trial Court rejected those documents. What is observed is that genuineness of Exs.D27 to D32 was disputed, considering the interpolations and defence not making any claim towards the outstanding amount, referring to Exs.D2 to D13 and Exs.D27 to D32 the trial Court has rejected such claim.
8. Attempt was made by both side to draw attention of this Court to Ex.D14, Ex.D14(a) and Ex.D14(b). Again to meet those documents, attempt was made to take this Court through Exs.D15 and D16, judgment of the trial Court and the oral evidence. The very fact of reading those documents and oral evidence once again excludes the matter from the purview of review. That amounts to searching enquiry, re-appreciating R.P.No.219/2017 6 the evidence and rewriting of the judgment. That is not the scope of review. Therefore the petition is dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE KSR