R. SRINIVAS Vs. THE COMMISSIONER, BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a plaintiffs review petition seeking for review of judgment passed by this Court in RFA No. 204/2009 dated 10.06.2014, whereunder this Court by affirming the judgment and decree passed by trial Court in O.S. No. 7882/2000 dated 31.01.2009, had dismissed the appeal filed by plaintiffs.

(2.) IT is the contention of Sri. Abhilash, learned counsel appearing for review petitioner that evidence of D.W.1 has not been looked into by this Court, which is found at paragraph 19 at page 16 of the judgment of trial Court, which indicated that defendant - D.W.1 had admitted in his cross -examination about 14 guntas and 30 guntas of land in Sy.Nos.55/2B and 69/1 had been excluded from acquisition and as such, plaintiffs had continued to be in possession of suit schedule properties. On account of non -consideration of said material evidence available on record, there is an error apparent on the face of record, which has crept in the judgment dated 10.06.2014 passed in RFA No. 204/2009 and as such, he seeks for review of the order passed by this Court.

(3.) SCOPE of review is limited under the guise of change of counsel or a fresh argument cannot be allowed to be advanced and law laid down on this aspect by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Kamlesh Verm A. v. Mayawati and others reported in : (2013) 8 SCC 320 is squarely applicable to facts on hand. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in said judgment that review would be maintainable where new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence and which was not within knowledge of petitioner could not be produced or there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of record or for any other sufficient reason. It has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above referred judgment as under: