IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA REVIEW PETITION NO.468 OF 2025 BETWEEN:

SMT. ASHA M. JAIN W/O. SRI. MAHENDRA KUMAR S. JAIN, D/O. SRI. JUHARMALJI S. JAIN, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.97, 4^TH CROSS, 2^ND MAIN, WIDIA LAYOUT SOCIETY, VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE - 560 040.

…PETITIONER (BY SRI. PARASMAL B @ PARAS JAIN, ADVOCATE)

AND:

SMT. KAVITHA .M W/O. SRI SHANKAR NAIK G.K.

AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, Digitally signed by RESIDING AT NO.812, MAHALAKSHMI B M

12^TH MAIN ROAD, HOYSALA ROAD, Location: HIGH COURT OF SRI VINAYAKA LAYOUT, KARNATAKA NEAR SWATHI RESTAURANT, NAGARABHAVI 2^ND STAGE, BANGALORE - 560 072.

AND ALSO AT PROPERTY BEARING NO.148, (NEW NO.310), SITUATED AT 15^TH CROSS, BALAJI LAYOUT, MALLATHAHALLI VILLAGE, BANGALORE NORTH TALUK, BANGALORE – 560 056.

…RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN R.F.A.NO.2485/2023 DATED 20.08.2025 ON ACCOUNT OF ERROR APPEARENT ON RECORD AND FOR OTHER REASONS, STATED IN THE PETITION, IN THE ENDS OF JUSTICE.

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA

ORAL ORDER

The present review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment dated 20.08.2025 passed in RFA No.2485/2023, whereby this Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the order of the Trial Court rejecting the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

2. Learned counsel for the review petitioner reiterates that, while considering an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, the Court ought to have confined itself to the plaint averments and that this Court erred in referring to the vendor’s sale deed while affirming the rejection of the plaint. According to the review petitioner, the plaint discloses a valid cause of action, and therefore, the judgment requires review.

3. The scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 is extremely limited. A review is maintainable only where there exists an error apparent on the face of the record or discovery of new and important evidence, which could not be produced earlier, despite due diligence. A review petition cannot be used to re-argue the matter or to seek a rehearing of the case on merits.

4. The law is well settled that review jurisdiction is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be invoked merely because a party seeks a rehearing of the matter. A review lies only for the correction of an error apparent on the face of the record and not for re-appreciation of the case.

5. The Apex Court in the case of Lily Thomas and others, (2000) 6 SCC 224 (Lily Thomas) has held at paragraph Nos.52 and 58 as under:

“52. The dictionary meaning of the word “review” is “the act of looking, offer something again with a view to correction or improvement”. It cannot be denied that the review is the creation of a statute. This Court in Patel Narshi Thakershi v. Pradyumansinghji Arjunsinghji held that the power of review is not an inherent power. It must be conferred by law either specifically or by necessary implication. The review is also not an appeal in disguise. It cannot be denied that justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers and the rules or procedures or technicalities of law cannot stand in the way of administration of justice. Law has to bend before justice. If the Court finds that the error pointed out in the review petition was under a mistake and the earlier judgment would not have been passed but for erroneous assumption which in fact did not exist and its perpetration shall result in a miscarriage of justice nothing would preclude the Court from rectifying the error. This Court in S. Nagaraj v. State of Karnataka held : (SCC pp. 619-

20, para 19)

“19. Review literally and even judicially means re-examination or reconsideration. Basic philosophy inherent in it is the universal acceptance of human fallibility. Yet in the realm of law the courts