Review Petition No. 100013/2014 in C.R.P. No. 1002/2012. Case: Namadev Sitaram Badiger Vs Manoja Chhawchharai and Ors.. High Court of Karnataka (India)

Case NumberReview Petition No. 100013/2014 in C.R.P. No. 1002/2012
CounselFor Appellant: Party-in-Person
JudgesAravind Kumar, J.
IssueCode of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XLVII Rule 1; Karnataka Court-fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 - Section 21
Judgement DateFebruary 08, 2016
CourtHigh Court of Karnataka (India)


Aravind Kumar, J.

  1. Heard Sri. Namadev, party-in-person and perused the records.

  2. This Review petition is filed seeking review of the dated 30.07.2013 passed in CRP No. 1002/2012. Said revision petition was filed by the petitioner in person questioning the correctness and legality of order passed by Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division (Dharwad) in O.S.261/2011 dated 09.12.2011 whereunder the review petitioner had been directed to value the suit as required under section 21 of Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 (for short 'Act'). This Court after having considered the contentions raised by Sri. Namadev, party appearing in person by a detailed order dated 30.07.2013 dismissed the revision petition and affirmed the order dated 09.12.2011. It is this order which is sought for being reviewed.

  3. It is the contention of Sri. Namadev, party appearing in person that at the time of entering into contract with the respondents, he had deposited money with them which was in a sum of ` 12,00,000/- and same has not been refunded and on account of said amount having not been paid back by respondents, suit in question has been filed. He contends that it is not a suit for recovery of money but a suit seeking for payment of deposit amount which the petitioner had not repaid to the respondents. This argument which was also advanced while adjudicating the revision petition came to be considered and rejected on the ground that it is a suit for recovery of amount from the respondents/defendants and as such petitioner/plaintiff is required to pay advalorem Court fees as provided under section 21 of the Act.

  4. Seeking review of this order Review Petition in question is filed. It is well settled the first and foremost requirement of review petition is the order, which the review is sought should suffer from error apparent on the face of the record. In the absence of such error finality attached to the order cannot be disturbed. The 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 the record and order justifying the Court to exercise its power of review. Reagitating the issue which is already decided is impermissible. The Apex Court in the case of Bagirathi Ammal v. Plalani Roman Catholic Mission reported in (2009) 10 SCC 464 has held that the error contemplated under Rule 1 of Order 47 of CPC for permissibility of review must be such which is...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT