Back
KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
E.S. Indiresh, J.
Mohammad Akbar Abdul Khasim Shaikh and Ors. – Petitioners
versus
Kanne and Ors. – Respondents
Review Petition No.100088 of 2014 C/w Review Petition No.100119 of 2014, Review Petition No.100124 of 2014
Decided on 18.2.2025
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order 47 Rule 1 and Section 114 – Review Petition – Scope and ambit – High Court while exercising jurisdiction under Section 114 of CPC is disentitled from rehearing matter on merits as an Appellate Court exercising jurisdiction under Section 96or 100 of CPC – Jurisdiction of High Court while exercising review cannot be exercised as an inherit power nor as Appellate Court be exercised in guise of power of review – Power of review may be exercised on discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after exercise of due diligence was not within knowledge of person seeking review or could not be produced by him at the time when order was made – No interference is called for in Review Petitions as impugned order has been tested before Supreme Court and Supreme Court declined to interfere with impugned order – Impugned order cannot be reheard as Appellate Court in view of bar under Section 114 of CPC. (Paras 18, 19 and 26)
Result: Review Petitions rejected.
The legal principles outlined in the provided document emphasize that the jurisdiction of a High Court to exercise review is strictly limited and cannot be used as an inherent or appellate power. The scope of review is confined to discovering new and important evidence or correcting errors that are apparent on the face of the record. It is not an opportunity to re-argue the case on merits or rehear matters on the basis of the original decision.
The document clarifies that the High Court, when exercising jurisdiction under Section 114 of the Civil Procedure Code, is not authorized to rehear the matter on its merits or substitute its own judgment, especially after the matter has been tested and decided by the Supreme Court. Once an order has been tested before the Supreme Court and that Court has declined to interfere, the impugned order cannot be reheard or revisited as an appellate court would do, due to the bar established under Section 114 of the CPC (!) (!) (!) .
Furthermore, the scope of review is limited to correcting patent errors or discovering new evidence that was not available despite due diligence at the time of the original order (!) (!) (!) . Repetitive arguments, minor mistakes, or disagreements with the findings on facts or evidence do not constitute valid grounds for review (!) (!) (!) .
The principles also highlight that an order refusing leave to appeal or dismissing a special leave petition does not automatically merge the order under review; rather, the order's binding effect is limited to the legal declaration or findings made within it (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In conclusion
ORDER (CAV)
In R.P.No.100088/2014, Review petitioner is assailing the judgment and decree dated 11.02.2014 in RSA No.553/2003. In R.P.No.100119/2014, Review petitioner is challenging the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2014 in RFA No.1549/2003. In R.P.No.100124/2014, Review petitioner is questioning the judgment and decree dated 30.01.2014 in RFA No.1549/2003.
2. Since these Review Petitions are arising out of the division of the property of original propositus –Mangesh Rao and the parties to the Review Petitions claiming succession under the original propositus –Mangesh Rao, the Review Petitions were heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. In R.P.No.100088/2014, it is the contention of the petitioner that this Court without considering the rights of the petitioner and based on the finding rendered in RFA No.1549/2003, passed the impugned order without considering the grounds urged in Regular Second Appeal. It is also stated that, an opportunity has not been extended to the petitioner to put forth his case. It is also stated in the petition that the Review petitioner has purchased the schedule property from its owner wherein the rights of the vendor has been protected by allotting share in the suit schedule property and same has been confirmed in RFA No.1549/2003 and accordingly sought for interference of the Court.
4. In R.P.No.100119/2014, it is contended in the Review Petition that this Court has not considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Kunhayammed and Others vs. State Of Kerala & Another, AIR 2000 SC 2587 with regard to implication of Section 3(2) of Hindu Women’s Rights to Properties Act and therefore sought for Review of the impugned order.
5. In R.P.No.100124/2014, the Review petitioner has contended that respondent No.3 – Abdul Khasim had purchased Item No.4 of the schedule property in Sy.No.476 Hissa No.1A1C measuring 0.14 guntas which includes the constructed portion as per the registered sale deed dated 23.10.1981. Respondent No.3 is a bonafide purchaser for valuable consideration and as the suit in O.S.No.39/1990 filed by the plaintiff has been dismissed by the Trial Court and later confirmed by the First Appellate Court and in that view of the matter the finding recorded by this Court in the impugned order is incorrect. It is further stated that the plaintiff is not entitled for any share in the property purchased by defendant No.3. It is also stated that while passing the impugned order, this Court has ignored the scope and ambit of Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, Hereinafter referred to as ‘Act’ and accordingly sought for Review of the impugned order. It is also stated in the petition that respondent Nos.2 and 3 are the bonafide purchasers and their interest has to be safeguarded and accordingly the petitioner has sought for Review of the impugned order.
6. I have heard Sri. S.P. Shankar learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of Sri. Harsh Desai for the petitioner in R.P.No.100119/2014 and Sri.Shivaraj P Mudhol for the petitioner in R.P.No.100088/2014 and R.P.No.100124/2014 and Sri. Sangram S Kulkarni and Sri.V.P. Kulkarni, learned counsels for the respondents.
7. Sri. S.P. Shankar learned Senior counsel for the petitioner invited attention of the Court to explanation (ii) to Section 6 of the Act and contended that the tenor of the scope of the explanation has not been considered by this Court and accordingly sought for interference of this Court. Referring to Exs.P.34 and D.3 of the original records in O.S.No.39/1990, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner argued that as the father of the petitioner separated himself from Hindu Undivided Family by taking his due share in the family properties and therefore explanation (ii) to Section 6 of Unamended Hindu Succession Act is applicable to the facts of the case and therefore sought for interference of this Court on the ground that there is error apparent on the face of the record and same has to be rectif
Review Petition – Jurisdiction of High Court while exercising review cannot be exercised as an inherit power nor as Appellate Court be exercised in guise of power of review – Power of review may be e....
Point of law: The power of review may be exercised on the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within the knowledge of the person seeki....
A review is limited to correcting apparent errors in the record, not a re-evaluation of the case, reaffirming that findings must strike readily without extensive reasoning.
Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to reargue the merits of a case.
(1) Review jurisdiction – Application for review would also lie if order has been passed on account of some mistake—Review court does not sit in appeal over its own order—Rehearing of matter is imper....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the review jurisdiction is limited and can only be allowed on grounds of mistake or error apparent on the face of the record. The court emphas....
Review jurisdiction is not an appeal; it addresses only material errors apparent on record, not new arguments or hearsay.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the power of review is not an inherent power and is subject to the limitations of Section 114 and Order-47, Rule-1 of CPC. A review can only b....
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
