Back
2025 Supreme(Kar) 1234
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.
Ramanjinappa R., S/o. Pujari Ramaiah - Appellant
Versus
Sri Raja, S/o Late R. Nagaraj - Respondent
Review Petition No.231 of 2025
Decided on : 03-09-2025
For the Appellant :SRI ANISH JOSE ANTONY, ADVOCATE)
For the Respondent:SRI SHRAVAN S. LOKRE, SENIOR ADVOCATE, SRI UNNIKRISHNAN M., ADVOCATE
A review petition cannot be used to challenge the merits of a decision, focusing only on errors apparent on the face of the record.
Headnote:(A) Karnataka High Court Act, 1961 - Section 5(1) - Review Petition - Jurisdiction and grant of unprayed relief - Appellate Court's decree granted absolute ownership to plaintiffs, which was not claimed in the original suit - Court cited decisions on limitations of relief granted without prayer (Om Prakash, Bharat Amratlal). Court held that objections to jurisdiction raised belatedly are precluded under Section 21 CPC. (Paras 2, 5, 10, 11)
(B) Scope of Review - Review confined to errors apparent on face of record, not on merits - Review petition dismissed as arguments attempted to reargue case and did not show any apparent error requiring correction. (Paras 3, 12)
Facts of the case:
The review petitioner challenged the appellate court's decree reversing the trial court's findings, claiming unprayed relief was granted and jurisdictional issues were not properly raised.
Findings of Court:
Review dismissed; no error apparent or grounds to revisit appellate merits.
Issues: Whether an error apparent exists for review and whether jurisdiction objections can be belatedly raised.
Ratio Decidendi: Review is not an appeal; court reaffirmed limits on review powers strictly confined to errors apparent.
Result: Review Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for review petition (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding appropriate ownership claim (Para 3 , 5) |
| 3. issue of jurisdiction and review nature (Para 4 , 6) |
| 4. limits of review jurisdiction (Para 7 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. distinction between error apparent and merits (Para 11 , 12) |
| 6. conclusion and dismissal of review (Para 13) |
ORDER :
K.S. HEMALEKHA, J.
This review petition is preferred by respondent No. 1 in RFA 1859/2024, who was the defendant No. 1 in the original suit OS No. 2279/2014 aggrieved by the judgment and decree passed in RFA 1859/2024, whereby the learned single Judge of this Court reversed the finding of the trial Court on issue No. 1 and decreed the suit in entirety, declaring the plaintiffs as absolute owners of the suit schedule property.
2. The review petitioner seeks to review the order on two grounds.
(i) that the plaintiffs never sought a declaration of absolute ownership and the Appellate Court went beyond the pleadings and granted a decree to the plaintiffs, which was unprayed. Reliance is placed upon the following decisions :
(a) Om Prakash and Others v. Ram Kumar and Others , [(1991) 1 SCC 441] (Om Prakash) to contend that a party cannot be granted a relief, which is not claimed, if the circumstances of the case are such that, the granting of such would result in serious prejudice to the interested party and deprive him of the valuable rights under the statute.
(b) Bharat Amratlal Kothari and Another v. Dosukhan, Samadkhan Sindhi and Others, (2010) 1 SCC 234 (Bharat Amratlal), to contend that though the Court has very wide discretion in granting relief, the Court, however cannot ignore and keep aside the norms and principles governing grant of relief, grant a relief not even prayed for by the petitioner.
(c) Akella Lalitha v. Konda Hanumantha Rao and Another , [2022 SCC Online SC 928] (Akella Lalitha), to contend that the relief unprayed deprives the other side of chance to resist and causes miscarriage of justice.
Thus the prayer granted by the Appellate Court, trial was never conducted on that claim and the defendants were denied an opportunity to contest.
(ii) Under Section 5 (1) of the Karnataka High Court Act, 1961, appeals above Rs.15,00,000/- must be heard by the Division Bench, property is worth over Rs. 5 Crores.
Thus the Single Judge lacked jurisdiction.
3. Per contra, the learned counsel senior counsel appearing for the respondents-plaintiffs submits that the pleadings of the plaintiffs covers absolute title of the plaintiffs, more particularly, para 4(a) to (d), the plaint asserts that the suit property is the self acquired property of R. Nagaraj, the father of the plaintiffs. Hence the claim of absolute ownership was embedded in the pleadings. Learned Senior Counsel takes the Court to Ex.P14, the compromise in O.S. No.892/2008, to contend that it is specifically agreed between the plaintiffs father (R. Nagaraj) and defendant No.1-Ramananjappa that if the acquisition was dropped, the entire right over the suit property vested in R. Nagaraj (plaintiff) and admittedly acquisition was in fact dropped. So the plaintiff (heirs) are sole owners.
3.1. That the scope of review is not rehearing on merits, and the appellate court merely corrected the trial Court's erroneous finding on issue No.1 Reliance is placed on the following decisions :
(a) Chhajju Ram vs Neki and Others , [AIR 1922 PC 127] (Chhajju Ram), to contend that review not to correct erroneous decision on merits, lies only for error apparent on face of record.
(b) Meera Bhanja vs Nirmala Kumari Choudhury , [(1995) 1 SCC 170] , that the review proceedings, not an appeal, confined strictly to the scope of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC.
(c) Parsion Devi and Others vs Sumitri Devi and Others , [(1997) 8 SCC 715] , review lies only for a mistake, error apparent on the face of record, not for rehearing.
3.2. The learned Senior Counsel to the jurisdiction point raised by the review petitioner it is submitted that pecuniary or territorial jurisdiction s
