Review Petition Cannot Be Used As A Vehicle To Re-Litigate Issues: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court observed that a review petition cannot be used as a vehicle to re-litigate issues.
It reiterated that a review petition is confined to addressing errors apparent on the face of the record, rather than re-litigating or challenging substantive claims.
The Court observed thus in a writ petition seeking a review of an order passed by the Court.
A Single Bench of Justice Sachin Shankar Magadum said that, “a review petition cannot be used as a vehicle to re-litigate issues that have already been decided, especially when the original order has attained finality."
The Bench added that such a challenge would not only contravene the principles of judicial finality but also disrupt the stability of property rights that have been affirmed by the Court, thereby undermining the integrity of the legal process.
Senior Advocate D.R. Ravishankar represented the petitioner while Senior Advocate Rajesh Mahale represented the respondents.
Factual Background -
The Special Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru, initiated proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 and declined to entertain the application of the respondents, seeking katha change on the premise that the legal heirs of a man have not produced documents indicating that their father was appointed as an Archak of Anjaneya Swamy Temple and there are no documents indicating payment of Rs. 175/- premium pursuant to grant. The Special Deputy Commissioner rejected the application on the premise that the material based on which respondents were asserting that there is a grant in favour of their father is a newly created file.
The order passed by the Special Deputy Commissioner under Section 136(3) was subjected to challenge before the High Court. The Bench allowed the writ petition and the impugned order was set aside. The Bench was of the view that the proceedings initiated under Section 136(3) after 38 years from the date of grant order which had attained finality, is illegal. Hence, the petitioner filed a petition, asserting title over the petition land. The review petitioner traced his title over the petition land on the basis of gift deed executed by one Thirumalappa to Munishami. The petitioner claimed to be the grandson of Munishami.
The High Court in view of the above facts, noted, “… in the case of Shivdeo Singh & Others v. State of Punjab & Others (supra), the Court reiterated that a review is not an appeal and cannot be utilized to correct every error or to re-examine the merits of the case. This principle underscores that under the guise of a review, the petitioner cannot be permitted to mount a fresh assault on the 1975 grant, which has been duly upheld by the coordinate Bench. Allowing such a challenge would not only undermine the established legal tenets but also threaten the stability of property rights that rely on judicial finality.”
The Court emphasised that the Court must consider the implications of challenging a grant that has been in place for nearly five decades. It said that the review petitioner’s arguments, which suggest fraud and illegality in the original grant, lack specific details and timelines.
“The absence of a clear framework detailing how the alleged fraud was committed diminishes the weight of these claims. Additionally, the law presumes the validity of the 1975 grant under Section 114(e) of the Evidence Act, further complicating the review petitioner’s position. The lapse of nearly half a century in contesting the grant raises significant concerns regarding the principles of delay and laches in legal proceedings”, it added.
Furthermore, the Court remarked that the petitioner’s claim to title over the property is rooted in a gift deed, which he presents as a basis for asserting his rights, however, he simultaneously contends that the property is affiliated with a Muzurai temple, arguing that it should thus be governed by the regulations of the Endowment Commissioner.
“This conflicting position raises substantial doubts about the petitioner’s locus standi to pursue a review of the coordinate Bench’s order. The dual nature of the petitioner’s assertions creates a complicated factual scenario that complicates the legitimacy of his claim. If the property is indeed under the control of the Endowment Commissioner due to its affiliation with the Muzurai temple, the petitioner’s title based on the gift deed becomes questionable, as it may not be within his rights to assert ownership independently of the regulatory framework applicable to temple properties”, it also said.
The Court held that the rights claimed by the petitioner, based on the gift deed, do not fall within the purview of review jurisdiction and noted that the Supreme Court has consistently emphasized the limited scope of review in matters concerning established titles and rights.
“In Union of India vs. Major SP Sharma (supra), the Court articulated that review jurisdiction is not an avenue for re-evaluating issues of title or ownership that have been conclusively decided in prior judgments. The Court reaffirmed that a review petition is confined to addressing errors apparent on the face of the record, rather than re-litigating or challenging substantive claims”, it elucidated.
The Court, therefore, observed that these matters are not amenable to review and the intertwining of these claims not only undermines the petitioner’s position but also reinforces the notion that the review petition lacks a solid legal foundation.
"The 1975 grant was initially scrutinized by the Deputy Commissioner through suo motu proceedings under Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, leading to a determination regarding its legitimacy. The coordinate Bench subsequently upheld the genuineness of this grant, reinforcing its validity and finality. In light of this, it is crucial to recognize that the petitioner, under the guise of seeking a review of the order, cannot be permitted to challenge the established order regarding the grant.”, the Court added.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the review petition and affirmed the impugned order.
Cause Title- M.S. Praveen Kumar v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate D.R. Ravishankar and Advocate Ramu S.
Respondents: Senior Advocate Rajesh Mahale, AGA Harisha A.S., Advocates D. Krishnamurthy, Shrenidhi L., and G.S. Bhat.
