Back
PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
Chief Administrative Officer – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
JUDGMENT
1. Heard learned counsel Sri J. M. Anil Kumar for the review petitioners and learned HCGP for respondent No.1/State and learned counsel Sri M.B.Raddi for respondent No.2.
2. This review petition is filed to review the order dtd. 7/6/2022 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.102026/2022, wherein this Court disposed of the writ petition filed by the 2nd respondent herein directing the services of respondent No.2 to be regularized and providing of service benefits, arrears in accordance with law in compliance of the award passed in I.D. No. 34/1998 dtd. 23/5/2001. A similar petition was also filed by another employee in Writ Petition No.145046/2020 and accordingly this petition came to be disposed of by this Court on the lines of order passed in Writ Petition No.145046/2020 dtd. 9/8/2021. It is the grievance of the revision petitioners that who are respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4 in the writ petition, while passing the orders in the writ petition, this Court had not issued notice to respondent Nos.2, 3 and 4, who are arrayed as parties and they were unable to bring the certain facts to the notice of this Court regarding pendency of Review Petition No.100069/2021 and W.A.No.951/2
Review proceedings under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC are strictly limited to correcting apparent errors and do not allow for a re-evaluation of the merits of the case.
Failure to provide notice to parties may result in procedural errors necessitating correction to uphold fair process.
The need for all parties to be given sufficient opportunity for hearing is essential in judicial proceedings.
Review petitions must demonstrate an error apparent on the face of the record, not merely an erroneous decision or disagreement with prior judgments.
Review jurisdiction cannot be exercised to rehear a case or correct an erroneous decision without evidence of an error apparent on the face of the record.
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
Point of Law : Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, which reads as Application for review of judgment.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
