High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Review Petition in Civil Procedure Code Case — No Error Apparent on Face of Record. Review Petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC fails as petitioner seeks re-argument on merits, not review of error.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU

Admin

2026-05-18 16:17:06

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, presided over by Hon'ble Mr. Justice S Sunil Dutt Yadav, delivered a CAV order on 16.12.2025 in Review Petition No. 284 of 2024. The review petition was filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, seeking review of an order dated 14.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.3012/2023 (GM-CPC). The petitioners, Smt. Meera Patankar and Yamuna Patankar, represented by their power of attorney holder Mr. Ajit Kumar, were the original writ petitioners. The respondents included Pavithra Constructions Pvt. Ltd., Dr. (Mrs.) Jyothi Jayaprakash Reddy, Mrs. Bindu Narendra, and Mr. A Arumugham. The review petition was heard and reserved on 18.09.2025 and pronounced on 16.12.2025. The court, after hearing the parties, found that the review petition did not disclose any error apparent on the face of the record. The court reiterated the settled principle that review jurisdiction is limited and cannot be used as an appellate forum to re-argue the case on merits. The petitioner's contentions essentially sought a re-appreciation of the evidence and re-argument of the case, which is not permissible in review proceedings. Consequently, the review petition was dismissed. The judgment emphasizes the narrow scope of review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and Section 114 CPC.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Review Jurisdiction - Error Apparent on Face of Record - Order XLVII Rule 1, Section 114 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The review petition sought review of an order dated 14.02.2023 in W.P.No.3012/2023. The court held that review is not an appeal in disguise and cannot be used to re-argue the merits of the case. The petitioner failed to point out any error apparent on the face of the record. Held that the review petition is dismissed. (Paras 1-5)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the order dated 14.02.2023 in W.P.No.3012/2023 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Final Decision

Review Petition No. 284 of 2024 is dismissed.

Law Points

Review jurisdiction is limited to errors apparent on the face of the record
not re-argument of merits
Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC
Section 114 CPC

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (12) 58

Review Petition No. 284 of 2024 in Writ Petition No.3012 of 2023 (GM-CPC)

2025-12-16

S Sunil Dutt Yadav

Sri Taji George for petitioners, Sri Abhinav Ramanand for respondent 1

Smt. Meera Patankar and Yamuna Patankar

Pavithra Constructions Pvt. Ltd. and Others

Nature of Litigation

Review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC seeking review of an order in a writ petition.

Remedy Sought

Review of order dated 14.02.2023 in W.P.No.3012/2023.

Filing Reason

Petitioners alleged error apparent on the face of the record in the original order.

Previous Decisions

Order dated 14.02.2023 in W.P.No.3012/2023.

Issues

Whether the order dated 14.02.2023 suffers from an error apparent on the face of the record.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioners argued that the order dated 14.02.2023 contained errors apparent on the face of the record. Respondents opposed the review, stating that the petition sought re-argument on merits.

Ratio Decidendi

Review jurisdiction under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC is limited to correcting errors apparent on the face of the record and cannot be used to re-argue the merits of the case.

Judgment Excerpts

This Review Petition has been filed seeking for review of the order dated 14.02.2023 passed in W.P.No.3012/2023.

Procedural History

The review petition was filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC against the order dated 14.02.2023 in W.P.No.3012/2023. It was heard and reserved on 18.09.2025 and pronounced on 16.12.2025.