IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR.SUBHRO KAMAL MUKHERJEE, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO.159 OF 2017 IN WRIT APPEAL NO.5326 OF 2011 (S-RES) BETWEEN SRI EMMANUEL LALITH KUMAR S/O SRI M.J.JAGANNATH AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT ‘SNEHAM’, BARKUR ROAD HANDADY, BRAHMAVAR-576213 UDUPI TALUK AND DISTRICT ... PETITIONER (BY SRI EMMANUEL LALITH KUMAR, PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND THE O S C EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY (R) (THE ORTHODOX SYRIAN CATHOLIC EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY [R]) 1ST FLOOR, SMS PU COLLEGE BRAHMAVARA-576213 UDUPI DISTRICT REP BY ITS ADDITIONAL SECRETARY ALBERT D’SILVA S/O FELIX D’SILVA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS ... RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 16/10/2015 PASSED IN WRIT APPEAL NO.5326/2011(S-RES).
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, ARAVIND KUMAR .J MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER Appellant in Writ Appeal No.5326/2011 has filed this review petition seeking review of the order dated 16.10.2015. There is delay of 514 days in filing the review petition. In order to ascertain as to whether any fruitful purpose would be served by issuing notice to respondent on the said application, we have heard the review petitioner appearing in person and perused the order dated 16.10.2015 which is sought for being reviewed.
2. Party, appearing in person, before us has contended that finding recorded by this Court is contrary to records that were produced before the enquiry officer, appellate tribunal as well as learned Single Judge. Hence, he contends that order dated 16.10.2015 is to be reviewed.
3. A perusal of the order passed in writ appeal would disclose that it has been passed after consideration of entire material on record. It is well settled, that first and foremost requirement for entertaining a review petition is that order, review of which is sought, suffers from errors apparent on the face of record. In absence of any such error, finality attached to the order cannot be disturbed. An error which is not self- evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error apparent on the face of record justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. This view is fortified by the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of KAMLESH VERMA vs MAYAWATI AND OTHERS reported in ([2013]8 SCC 320).
4. Reiterating points already advanced is impermissible in review. Apex Court, in the case of S.BAGIRATHI AMMAL vs PALANI ROMAN CATHOLIC MISSION reported in ([2009]10 SCC 464) has held that an error contemplated under Rule 1 of Order 47 CPC which is sought for review must be such which is apparent on the face of record and not an error which has to be fished out and searched. In other words, it must be an error of inadvertence. It should be something more than a mere error and it must be one which must be manifest on the face of record.
5. In the case on hand, no such error has occurred for us to interfere and review the order passed in Writ Appeal No.5326/2011 dated 16.10.2015.
6. In the light of the aforestated discussion, we are of the considered view that issuing of notice on I.A.No.1/2017 would not serve any purpose and accordingly, we reject the application for condonation of delay – I.A.No.1/2017 as well as review petition on merits.
Sd/- CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- JUDGE bkv