1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10 th DAY OF AUGUST, 2015 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAM MOHAN REDDY REVIEW PETITION NOs. 367 OF 2015 AND 514-517 OF 2015 IN WRIT PETITION NOs.48498-502 of *2013 BETWEEN: YELLAPPA S/O LATE SRI NALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS R/A NO. 92, CHIKKALAKSHMAIAH LAYOUT, HOSUR ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 029. .. PETITIONER (BY SRI.M.R.RAJAGOPAL, ADV.) AND: 1. P. VENKATESHAN S/O SRI POUN RAJULU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT NO.7, KAVERI LAYOUT, SUDDAGUNTEPALYA, DARMARAM COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE – 560 029. *Corrected vide chamber order dated 19.08.2015 2 2. SMT. H SHIVANI SHETTY AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS W/O SHRI H .VEERARAJ SHETTY R/AT NO.7, KAVERI LAYOUT, SUDDAGUNTEPALYA DARMARAM COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE – 560 029. 3. SHRI. H .VEERARAJ SHETTY AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS S/O SHRI H.CHANDRASEKARA SHETTY R/AT NO.7, KAVERI LAYOUT SUDDAGUNTEPALYA DARMARAM COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE – 560 029. 4. SMT. T.A. AMALORPAVI AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS W/O SHRI P VENKATESHAN R/AT NO.7, KAVERI LAYOUT SUDDAGUNTEPALYA DARMARAM COLLEGE POST, BANGALORE – 560 029. 5. THE DISTRICT REGISTRAR OF STAMPS NO.2722, 2 ND FLOOR 12 TH MAIN ROAD, 4 TH BLOCK JAYANAGAR, BANGALORE – 560 011. ... RESPONDENTS THESE REVIEW PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 6.4.2015 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.Nos.48498-502/2013 AND DISMISS THE WRIT PETITIONS WITH COSTS. 3 THESE REVIEW PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING: O R D E R These petitions are filed by the 1 st respondent in W.P.Nos.48498-502/2013 to review the order dated 6.4.2015 allowing the writ petitions. 2. Petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.6007/2006 for specific performance of an agreement of sale dated 10.4.2002, which when found to be insufficiently stamped under the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, for short ‘Act’ was impounded by the 12 th Addl. City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-27), Bangalore, deficit stamp duty and penalty determined in accordance with Section 34 of the Act. Petitioner-plaintiff filed IA-10 to forward the agreement of sale to the Deputy Commissioner for adjudication of deficit stamp duty and penalty under Section 37 of the Act which came to be rejected by order dated 13.11.2009, which when carried in 4 W.P.No.36252-53/2009 was confirmed by rejecting the said petition on 30.8.2010, which, when carried to the Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) No.34652-53/2010 was affirmed by dismissal of the said petitions. 3. It is thereafter petitioner filed IA-11 under Section 151 CPC to forward the agreement of sale for fresh adjudication of deficit stamp duty and penalty under Subsection (2) of Section 37 of the Act on the premise that the learned Judge by order dated 30.8.2010 extended such a benefit to the plaintiff, if he did not choose to pay the duty and penalty or abandons the suit. That IA-11 when allowed led to W.P.No.48498- 502/2013 whence the order under review was passed recording a finding that the learned Single Judge in the Order dated 30.8.2010 did not extend alleged benefit to the plaintiff, in the light of Subsection (2) of Section 37 of the Act and observing that if the plaintiff chooses not to pay the duty and penalty and seeks to abandon the 5 Suit, the court is required to forward the document to the Deputy Commissioner “for further action” which did not mean readjudication of the duty and penalty. 4. These Petitions are filed invoking Order 47 Rule 1 CPC inter alia contending that a legal question over Section 39 of the ‘Act’ was not addressed with due diligence and there is a need to interpret the said provision in exercise of review jurisdiction. 5. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that under Section 39 of the ‘Act’, once the Deputy Commissioner receives an instrument under Subsection (2) of Section 37, not being an instrument chargeable with duty not exceeding fifteen paise only or mortgage of crop chargeable under Clause (1) or (b) of Section 3 with a duty of twenty-five paise, is required to adopt the procedure prescribed under clauses (a) and (b) thereon and therefore, the Civil Court was justified in 6 allowing IA-11 directing readjudication of duty and penalty by the Deputy Commissioner, is noticed only to be rejected. 6. In the order under review, Section 37 is extracted. Subsection (1) relates to impounding of an instrument under Section 33; admission of the instrument in evidence for payment of penalty as provided by Section 34, or of duty provided under Section 36 and send to the Deputy Commissioner an authenticated copy of the instrument, together with, a certificate in writing, stating the amount of duty and penalty levied in respect thereof, and shall send such amount to the Deputy Commissioner or to such person as he may appoint in this behalf. However, subsection (2) makes it abundantly clear that it is only “in every other case, the person so impounding an instrument shall send the original to the Deputy Commissioner”. It is not the case of the petitioner that he falls under 7 subsection (2) of Section 37 that the instrument was in the nature of “in every other case”. 7. Section 39 is applicable in respect of instrument received by him under Subsection (2) of Section 37 from the Civil Court and required to follow a procedure under clauses (a) and (b) of Section 39(1) and not otherwise. In the instant case, reiterating the order under review, the impounding of the document and the determination of duty and penalty by the Civil Court when confirmed by this court was affirmed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, the submission that the agreement of sale falls within Subsection (2) of Section 37 pales into insignificance. 8. It is elsewhere said that review must be confined to errors apparent on the face of the record. In other words, error must be apparent on the mere looking of the record without requiring any long drawn 8 process of reasoning since reappraisal of evidence on record for finding the error would amount to an exercise of appellate jurisdiction which is not permissible. Error is one which is evident and does not require a process of reasoning distinct from “erroneous decision”. In Haridas Das –v- Usha Rani Banik (Smt) & Others 1, the argument that petitioner had not highlighted all the aspects of the case or could not have argued more forcefully, or cited binding precedents to get a favourable judgment is held to be not permissible in a review. 9. In the instant case too, no grounds are made out under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC, for interference. Petitions rejected. Sd/- JUDGE ln. 1 (2006) 4 SCC 78 .