An immaterial misstatement that does not affect adjudication is no ground for review.

Respondent No. 1 had filed W.P. No. 4837/2020 seeking action against the Municipality over allegedly illegal temporary commercial sheds.

The High Court disposed of that petition after noting that municipal action under Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, had been initiated, and reserved liberty to pursue further action in accordance with law.

The order also recorded that O.S. No. 47/2020 concerned a title dispute over the property.

The petitioner, who was not a party to the earlier writ petition, sought review, contending that the suit was only for injunction and that the title-dispute observation was erroneous.

Whether a person who was not a party to the earlier writ petition could seek review of the order where the earlier proceedings allegedly affected their interests.

Whether the asserted error in describing O.S. No. 47/2020 as a title dispute warranted review of the earlier order.

Under Shivdev Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 1909, Article 226 does not prevent a High Court from exercising the review power inherent in a court of plenary jurisdiction to prevent miscarriage of justice or correct grave and palpable errors; a non-party whose interests were affected by an earlier decision may be heard in review.

Section 187 of the Karnataka Municipalities Act, 1964, was relevant to the municipal proceedings concerning the alleged construction.

The Court considered that the challenged observation appeared in paragraph 8 of the earlier judgment, but the disposition rested on the Municipality’s initiation of action under Section 187 and the availability of a statutory remedy, not on the characterization of the civil suit as a title suit.

Accordingly, even if the petitioner’s description of the suit was correct, the alleged error did not affect the final adjudication and did not constitute a ground for review.

The Court left open the petitioner’s right to raise contentions in appropriate proceedings.

The dismissal was without prejudice to the petitioner’s right to raise all contentions in appropriate proceedings in accordance with law.