Karnataka High Court Civil Procedure and Evidence Constitutional Law

Petitioner Cites Respondent’s Death In Review Bid; Karnataka HC Says Later Developments Alone Cannot Justify Review

By LawLens Team · Editorial and Research TeamDecided October 13, 2026Published 30 October 2026 at 3:18 pm IST1 min read

The LawLens card for this judgment

In brief

The question

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the review application where review was sought on the basis of subsequent developments rather than an error apparent on the face of the record?

The court held

The Court held that the Trial Court had committed no error or infirmity in rejecting the review application.

It also directed

The writ petition was dismissed.

01Facts

The petitioner challenged, under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Trial Court’s order rejecting her application under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for review of an earlier order in F.D.P. No. 11/2013.

pp. 5–6

She contended that the death of respondent No. 2 and subsequent developments concerning the drawing up of the decree warranted reconsideration of the shares.

p. 6 · ¶ 2

The respondents argued that subsequent developments could not provide a basis for review.

p. 6 · ¶ 3

02Issues

i.1. Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the review application where review was sought on the basis of subsequent developments rather than an error apparent on the face of the record?

p. 6 · ¶ 5 · p. 7 · ¶ 6

ii.2. Whether the petitioner’s grievance concerning subsequent developments could be pursued through a remedy other than review?

p. 7 · ¶ 6

03Law Applied

Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 governs review and does not permit review merely on the basis of subsequent developments where no error apparent on the face of the record is shown.

p. 7 · ¶ 6

Section 151 CPC was also invoked in the review application, while Article 227 of the Constitution provided the basis for the petitioner’s supervisory challenge.

p. 5

The Court cited no precedents.

Provisions in the judgment · 1 · Linked ones open on LawLens

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Section 151

04Reasoning

The Court found that the review application was not founded on an error apparent on the face of the record, but on subsequent developments, including the death of respondent No. 2.

p. 7 · ¶ 6

Those developments could not, by themselves, justify review of the earlier order.

p. 7 · ¶ 6

The Court noted that any grievance arising from the order could be pursued through an appropriate remedy in accordance with law; review was not the only remedy available.

p. 7 · ¶ 6