Review jurisdiction cannot be invoked to permit a re-hearing of a case on facts when the findings regarding service of notice were already established based on official records.

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908 PRAYING TO:- I. REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 30.12.2024 PASSED IN W.A.NO.219/2022 (SC ST); II. CONSEQUENTLY, ALLOW THE W.A.NO.219/2022 (SC ST). FILED BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THIS HON'BLE COURT; AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN

and

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE G BASAVARAJA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)

1. Heard learned counsel for Review Petitioners.

2. We have considered the averments in the Review Petition and the grounds raised therein. The main ground urged in the Review Petition to justify the review of the judgment is that, the order of the Deputy Commissioner was one passed without notice to the appellant which justifies the delay in filing the writ petition. However, we notice that there is a specific finding recorded by the learned Single Judge that the order of the Deputy Commissioner was passed after notice to the appellants and on their being represented before the Deputy Commissioner. The records of the Deputy Commissioner proceedings were produced before this Court as well and a finding is recorded that the notice had been served by the Deputy Commissioner.

3. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no ground made out for review of the judgment and the review cannot be permitted to become re hearing on the facts of the case.

4. In the result, review petition is dismissed.