IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. VEERAPPA REVIEW PETITION No.125 OF 2018(GM – CPC) BETWEEN:
M/s. C-3,COM.CEL.CITI GROUND FLOOR, No.94/3-1, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 Also at No.25/A, Millers Road Cross, Benson Town, Bangalore 560 046 Rep. by its Proprietor, Sri Ghani Haneef, S/o late Abdul Ghani, Aged about 49 years.
... Petitioner (By Sri. M.J. Alva, Advocate For Sri Anjaneya, Adv.) AND 1. M/s. K.M. Akbar Trust, No. 94/3, Infantry Road, Bengaluru -01, Represented by it’s Managing Trustee, MS. Niloufer Akbar, D/o. Late K.M. Akbar, Aged about 54 years, 2. M/s. Shakthi Enterprises, A registered partnership firm, No.94/3-1, Infantry Road, Bengaluru -560 001 Also having office at: No.3156, 12th Main, HAL 2nd Stage, Indiranagar, Bengaluru -38 Represented by its partners, 2(i) Smt. Vasanthi K. Alva, W/o. Sri. P. K. Alva, Aged about 70 years, 2(ii) Sri. Kiran Alva, S/o. Santha Alva, Aged about 58 years, 2(iii) Smt. Vrindra K. Alva, W/o. Kiran Alva, Aged about 49 years.
2(iv) Sri. Vijay Krishna K. Alva, S/o. P.K. Alva, Aged about 46 years.
3. M/s. C-3 Com. Cel. CITI, Ground Floor, No. 94/3-1, Infantry Road, Bengaluru -01.
Also at No. 80, Infantry Road, Shivadharshan Building, Bengaluru -01, Represented by its Proprietor Sri Ranjan Kumar Bohra, S/o Not known to Petitioner Aged about 50 years.
4. M/s. Fridge House, Ground floor, No.94/3-1, Infantry Road, Bangalore -560 001.
Represented by one of its partners Sri. Krishna Prasad, 55 years, S/o. late M. Bhaskar Rao.
Now office situated at:
M/s. Fridge House, No.23, ‘Adhithya Towers’, V.N.S. Road, Tasker Town, Shivaji Nagar, Bengaluru-01., 5. M/s. Millenium Point, Ground Floor, No.94/3-1, Infantry Road, Bengaluru -01.
Represented by its proprietor, Sri. Syed Mustafa, 46 years.
6. M/s. Unicorn Restaurant, 1st Floor & 3rd Floor, No.94/3-1, Infantry Road, Bengaluru -01, Represented by its proprietor, Smt. Gayathri Desai, W/o. Sri. Ganapathi Desai, Age Major 7. M/s. Crescent Information & Management Centre, 2nd Floor, No. 94/3-1, Infantry Road, Bengaluru -01. A Private Limited Company, Represented by its Managing Director, Sri. Akmal Shariff, S/o. Khader Shariff, Age Major. ... Respondents This Review Petition has been filed under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w 114 of CPC, praying to review the order dated 22.03.2017 in W.P. No. 41069/2017 (GM-CPC) by this Hon’ble Court and pass the following reliefs; a) Kindly direct the plaintiff/respondent No.1 to collect the arrears of rent from M/s. Shakthi Enterprises/respondent NO.2 and not from the Review petitioner and grant such other and further reliefs etc.
This Review Petition coming on for hearing- Interlocutory application this day the Court made the following:
O R D E R The present review petition is filed by the petitioner, who is second respondent in W.P.No.41069/2014 was served and unrepresented and this petition is filed to review the order dated 22.03.2017.
2. Learned counsel Shri M.J. Alva, for Sri Anjaneya, learned counsel for the petitioner mainly contended that the present petitioner had already vacated the premises in the month of November 2015 itself. Therefore, question of paying rent would not arise. The grounds urged in the review petition has already been urged in the writ petition and same was considered and a detailed order came to be passed. Re- hearing the grounds already urged in the review petition already urged and decided in the writ petition would not arise. Against the very order dated 22.3.2017 made in W.P.No.41069/2014, respondent No.5 therein filed review petition No.50/2018 on similar grounds. This Court, by order the dated 28.06.2018 dismissed the review petition and made an observation in para No.28 of the impugned order and specifically observed that, the tenants, who are existing as on the date of the order shall deposit rents till they vacate or till disposal of the suit. The tenants were already vacated the premises and it is open for them to approach the trial court by filing appropriate application.
3. This Court in para No.4, 5 & 6 of the review petition observed that:
“4. the order passed by this Court applicable only to the existing tenants and not the tenants, who are already vacated and the order also specified reserving liberty to the tenants/defendants already vacated the premises, the question of depositing the rent before the trial court would not arise. The petitioner has not made out any error apparent on the face of the record so as to review the order passed by this Court.
5. It is well settled that the first and foremost requirement of entertaining a review petition is that the order, review of which is sought suffers from error apparent on the face of the record and permitting the order to stand will lead to failure of justice. In the absence of any such error, finality attached to the judgment/order cannot be disturbed. An error, which is not self evident and has to be detected by the process of reasoning can hardly be said to be error apparent on the face of the record, justifying the Court to exercise the power of review. Re-
agitating the points already decided is impermissible in review proceedings.
6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the scope of the review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure in the case of Kamlesh Varma Vs. Mayawati & Others reported in (2013) SC 3301 has held at para 15 and 16 as under:
“15. Review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope and ambit of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. In review jurisdiction, mere disagreement with the view of the judgment cannot be the ground for invoking the same. As long as the point is already dealt with and answered, the parties are not entitled to challenge the impugned judgment in the guise that an alternative view is possible under the review jurisdiction. Summary of the Principles:
16. Thus, in view of the above, the following grounds of review are maintainable as stipulated by the statute:
(A) When the review will be maintainable:-
(i) Discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him;
(ii) Mistake or error apparent on the face of the record;
(iii) Any other sufficient reason.
16.1 The words ‘any other sufficient reason’ has been interpreted in Chhajju Ram v. Neki, [AIR 1922 PC 112] and approved by this Court in Moran Mar Basselios Catholicos v. Most Rev. Mar Poulose Athanasius & Ors., [(1955) 1 SCR 520], to mean ‘a reason sufficient on grounds at least analogous to those specified in the rule’. The same principles have been reiterated in Union of India v. Sandur Manganese & Iron Ores Ltd. & Ors., [JT 2013 (8) SC 275].
(B) When the review will not be maintainable:-
(i) A repetition of old and overruled argument is not enough to reopen concluded adjudications.
(ii) Minor mistakes of inconsequential import.
(iii) Review proceedings cannot be equated with the original hearing of the case.
(iv) Review is not maintainable unless the material error, manifest on the face of the order, undermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.
(v) A review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected but lies only for patent error.
(vi) The mere possibility of two views on the subject cannot be a ground for review.
(vii) The error apparent on the face of the record should not be an error which has to be fished out and searched.
(viii) The appreciation of evidence on record is fully within the domain of the appellate court, it cannot be permitted to be advanced in the review petition.
(ix) Review is not maintainable when the same relief sought at the time of arguing the main matter had been negatived.”
4. In view of the aforesaid reasons, the review petitioner has not made out any ground apparent on the face of the record to review the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.41069/2014 dated 22.3.2017 and the same is dismissed as devoid of any merits.
5. Since the main review petition is dismissed on merits, question of considering I.A. No.1/2018 for condonation of delay does not arise.
Sd/- JUDGE Psg*