01Facts
The petitioners sought review of the order dated 10 June 2026 in Writ Appeal No. 979 of 2016 (LA-BDA).
p. 7The High Court considered the review petition at the admission stage.
p. 702Issues
i.1. Whether the order in Writ Appeal No. 979 of 2016 disclosed an error apparent on the face of the record warranting review.
p. 803Law Applied
The petition was brought under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
p. 7The Court’s stated basis for decision was whether there was an error apparent on the face of the record, in law or on the facts, that justified review.
p. 8Provisions in the judgment · 2 · Linked ones open on LawLens
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 114Section 47
04Reasoning
The Court found no error apparent on the face of the record, whether concerning law or facts, in the judgment and order under review.
p. 8It therefore concluded that the stated basis for review was not established.
p. 805Holding
The Court dismissed the review petition.
p. 8The order dated 10 June 2026 in Writ Appeal No. 979 of 2016 was not reviewed.
p. 8Original Court PDF
SRI MUNIYAPPA KvsSTATE OF KARNATAKA
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in
