IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

REVIEW PETITION NO. 621 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SRI. GOPAL G. PAWAR

S/O LATE N.GOVINDAPPA AND

LATE SMT GODAVARI BAI,

AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,

PRESENTLY AT NEW ADDRESS

R/O VRUSHABHADRI NILAYA,

4^TH MAIN, 3^RD CROSS,

HIGH SCHOOL EXTENSION,

HARIHARA-577 601

DAVANAGERE- DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. R.GOPAL, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed

THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,

by THEJAS

KUMAR N (ELECTRICAL) BRUHAT KAMAGARI,

Location: HIGH UPA VIBHAGA-2, KPTCL, R.H. BUILDING, COURT OF 2^ND FLOOR, POONA - BENGALURU ROAD,

KARNATAKA

DAVANAGERE-577002.

…RESPONDENT

THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER ORDER 47, RULE 1 READ

WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS LISTED FOR ADMISSION,

THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

ORAL ORDER

Sri.R.Gopal, for the review petitioner, appeared in person. The review petition is filed seeking a review of the order passed by this Court on 27.11.2024 in W.P.No.25736/2024.

2. Counsel for the petitioner urged several contentions.

3. Sri.R.Gopal, in presenting his arguments, strenuously urged that the reduction of compensation in respect of coconut trees and the award of interest of 6% is an error apparent on the face of the record. Counsel, hence, submits that the order may be reviewed.

4. Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care.

5. The only point for consideration in this petition is whether the review petitioner has made out a case for reviewing the order dated 27^th day of November 2024 and satisfies the criteria of entertaining the same in the review jurisdiction.

6. Order 47 Rule (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure provides for an application for review, which reads as under: 1. Application for review of the judgment.- (1) Any person considering himself aggrieved,-

(a) by a decree or Order from which an appeal is allowed, but from which no appeal has been preferred, (b) by a decree or Order from which no appeal is allowed, or (c) by a decision on a reference from a Court of Small Causes, and who, from the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or Order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or Order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the Order.

7. The Apex court has repeatedly held in various judgments that the jurisdiction and scope of the review are not that of an appeal and can be entertained only if there is an apparent error on the face of the record. A mere repetition of old and overruled arguments, a second trip over ineffectually covered grounds, or minor mistakes of an inconsequential import are insufficient.

As is well known, a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by the Court merely for rehearing and a fresh decision of the case. The normal principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final. Under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, a judgment may be open to review inter alia if a mistake or an error is apparent on the face of the record. An error that is not self-evident and must be detected through a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the court to exercise its power of review under Order 47, Rule 1, CPC. Suffice it to note that in the exercise of jurisdiction under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, it is not permissible for an erroneous decision to be ‘reheard and corrected’. A review petition must be remembered as having a limited purpose and cannot be allowed to be an ‘appeal in disguise’.

8. Turning to the facts of the case, the review petitioner has a grievance about the compensation awarded in respect of coconut trees and the award of 6% interest. This Court dispose