IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE REVIEW PETITION NO.592 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
H. N. JAYASHANKAR S/O. LATE H. NAGESH RAO AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS R/AT NO. 1156 AND 1157 5TH MAIN ROAD, A BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR 2ND STAGE BANGALORE-560 010. ... PETITIONER (BY SRI ARAVINDA BABU B.S., ADV.) AND:
1. M/S. STANMED LABS NO.428, 12TH CROSS 4TH PHASE PEENYA INDUSTRIAL AREA BENGALURU-560 058 HAVING ITS OFFICE SITUATED AT NO.1518A, 8TH MAIN ROAD 2ND STAGE, A BLOCK RAJAJINAGAR BENGALURU-560 010. REP. BY ITS PARTNER MR. H.N. JAYAPRAKASH.
2. H. N. JAYAPRAKASH S/O. LATE H. NAGESH RAO AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS NO.126 (NEW NO.275) BRAHMINS STREET DODDABALLAPURA BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT KARNATAKA-561 203. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SUNIL RAO, ADV. FOR R1; R2- PARTY IN PERSON SERVED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47, RULE 1 OF C.P.C. PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED: 13.09.2017 PASSED IN CMP NO.107/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Sri Aravinda Babu B.S., learned counsel for petitioner. Sri Sunil Rao, learned counsel for respondent No.1.
2. In this review petition, the petitioner inter alia seeks review of the order dated 13.09.2017 passed by a Bench of this Court in C.M.P.No.107/2016 preferred by the respondents herein under Section 11(5) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
3. The review in the instant petition is sought on the ground that despite service of notice, the petitioner could not appear before this Court on account of inadvertence on the part of the counsel. In the considered opinion of this Court, the aforesaid ground cannot form a ground to seek review of the order. The distinction between the review and recall of the order is well settled in law. The appropriate remedy for the petitioner in the facts and circumstances of the case is to file an application for recall of the order dated 13.09.2017, if so advised.
4. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he be permitted to convert this review petition into an application for recall.
5. I am not inclined to permit the learned counsel for the petitioner to do so for the simple reason that scope of the proceeding for review which is normally sought on the ground analogous to one mentioned in Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is different from the application seeking recall of the order.
6. Therefore, the prayer as sought for by the petitioner seeking conversion of this review petition into an application for recall is hereby rejected. However, as aforesaid, the petitioner is at liberty to file an application seeking recall of the order dated 13.09.2017, if so advised.
With the aforesaid liberty, the review petition is disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE ST