D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120]Code Context                                echo "<div class='table-bordered'><b>Excerpt:</b><br/>";

                                    if (trim($desc['Judgement']['casenote'])) {

                                        echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['casenote']))), $query);
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 120
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

civil - review petition - articles 225 and 226 of constitution of india and rule 39 of high court of karnataka writ proceedings rules, 1977 - by virtue of rule 39 provisions of code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no rule to contrary shown to be contained in rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under article 226 and appeals therefrom - order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed. - motor vehicles act, 1988[c.a. no. 59/1988]section 163-a; [chidananda ullal & a.n. venugopala gowda, jj] compensation inadequacy of appealed against- applicability of section 163a held, the claimants whose.....

Notice (8): Undefined variable: kword [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123]Code Context                                    }

                                //highest occurence of word in the judgement

                                echo $this->Wand->highlight($this->Excerpt->extractRelevant($kword,strtolower(strip_tags($desc['Judgement']['judgement']))), $query) . "</div>";
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 123
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

order1. this review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by hon'ble mr. s. rajendra babu, j. and hon'ble mr. b.s. sreenivasa rao,j., in w.a. nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under order 47. rule 1 of the code of civil procedure.2. we have heard sri shivaram bhat, learned counsel for the applicants/petitioners.3. this court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. the contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. the matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. hence, the appeals are 'dismissed'.' it is against this order, the review application has been filed.4. the learned counsel for the.....

Judgment:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 0
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

ORDER

1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 1
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 2
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 3
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 4
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 5
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 6
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 7
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 8
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 9
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 10
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 11
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.

Notice (8): Undefined variable: query [APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144]Code Context                                         echo $this->Adsense->display('responsive_rect'); 

                                        }

                                        echo html_entity_decode($this->Wand->highlight($content[$i], $query));
$viewFile = '/home/legalcrystal/app/View/Case/amp.ctp'
$dataForView = array(
	'title_for_layout' => 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | ',
	'desc' => array(
		'Judgement' => array(
			'id' => '370462',
			'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
			'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
			'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
			'authreffered' => '',
			'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
			'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
			'caseanalysis' => null,
			'casesref' => '',
			'citingcases' => '',
			'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
			'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
			'court' => 'Karnataka',
			'court_type' => 'HC',
			'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
			'deposition' => '',
			'favorof' => null,
			'findings' => null,
			'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
			'judgement' => 'ORDER<p style="text-align: justify;">1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p style="text-align: justify;">5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p style="text-align: justify;">'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p style="text-align: justify;">8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p style="text-align: justify;"></p><p style="text-align: justify;">',
			'observations' => null,
			'overruledby' => null,
			'prhistory' => '',
			'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
			'ratiodecidendi' => '',
			'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
			'sub' => 'Civil',
			'link' => null,
			'circuit' => null
		)
	),
	'casename_url' => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka',
	'args' => array(
		(int) 0 => '370462',
		(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
	)
)
$title_for_layout = 'D Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs State of Karnataka and Others - Citation 370462 - Court Judgment | '
$desc = array(
	'Judgement' => array(
		'id' => '370462',
		'acts' => '<a href="/act/51737/constitution-of-india-complete-act">Constitution of India</a> - Articles 225, 226 and 227; <a href="/act/51117/code-of-civil-procedure-1908-complete-act">Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908</a> - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39',
		'appealno' => 'Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997',
		'appellant' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another',
		'authreffered' => '',
		'casename' => 'D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others',
		'casenote' => 'Civil - review petition - Articles 225 and 226 of Constitution of India and Rule 39 of High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - by virtue of Rule 39 provisions of Code do apply to proceedings under article 226 and appeals therefrom - no Rule to contrary shown to be contained in Rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement - provision of Order 22 do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom - Order impugned does not appear to be suffering from any error of law apparent on face of record - review petition misconceived and dismissed.


 - MOTOR VEHICLES ACT, 1988[C.A. No. 59/1988]Section 163-A; [Chidananda Ullal & A.N. Venugopala Gowda, JJ] Compensation  Inadequacy of Appealed against- Applicability of Section 163A  Held, The claimants whose annual income is not more that Rs. 40,000/ can only make the claim under Section 163-A of the Act. The claim has to be considered and disposed off keeping in view the formula provided in the II Schedule of the Act, i.e., on structured formula, having regard to the age of the victim and his income. The award made under the said provision shall be in full and final settlement of the claim. The note appended to Column 1 from the total amount of compensation, 1/3rd thereof, has to be reduced in consideration of the expenses, which the victim would have incurred, towards maintaining himself had he been alive. Further, Section 163-A read with Schedule II of the Act, itself having provided the percentage of deduction to be effected, the deduction can be in terms thereof only and not otherwise. Award is justified.  -  We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'.These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'.This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C. It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding.',
		'caseanalysis' => null,
		'casesref' => '',
		'citingcases' => '',
		'counselplain' => ' Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.',
		'counseldef' => ' Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.',
		'court' => 'Karnataka',
		'court_type' => 'HC',
		'decidedon' => '1999-10-27',
		'deposition' => '',
		'favorof' => null,
		'findings' => null,
		'judge' => 'Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.',
		'judgement' => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.</p><p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.</p><p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.</p><p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)</p><p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:</p><p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.</p><p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.</p><p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:</p><p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.</p><p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:</p><p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.</p><p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p></p><p>',
		'observations' => null,
		'overruledby' => null,
		'prhistory' => '',
		'pubs' => '2000(1)KarLJ34',
		'ratiodecidendi' => '',
		'respondent' => 'State of Karnataka and Others',
		'sub' => 'Civil',
		'link' => null,
		'circuit' => null
	)
)
$casename_url = 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$args = array(
	(int) 0 => '370462',
	(int) 1 => 'd-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
)
$url = 'https://sooperkanoon.com/case/amp/370462/d-thimmappa-sheika-vs-state-karnataka'
$ctype = ' High Court'
$content = array(
	(int) 0 => 'ORDER<p>1. This review petition, from the order dated 20-3-1997 delivered by Hon'ble Mr. S. Rajendra Babu, J. and Hon'ble Mr. B.S. Sreenivasa Rao,J., in W.A. Nos. 1375 and 1376 of 1995, has been filed under Order 47. Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure.',
	(int) 1 => '<p>2. We have heard Sri Shivaram Bhat, learned Counsel for the applicants/petitioners.',
	(int) 2 => '<p>3. This Court dismissed the appeals and passed the order 'that as respondent 2 is stated to have died on 6-10-1995, appeal had abated as against respondent 2. The contesting respondent having died, but legal representatives not having been brought on record. The matter having abated no relief can be granted to the appellants. Hence, the appeals are 'Dismissed'.' It is against this order, the review application has been filed.',
	(int) 3 => '<p>4. The learned Counsel for the applicant/petitioners submitted that the provisions of Order 22 do not apply to the writ proceedings or writ appeal so order impugned suffers from error of law apparent on record and made reference to the decision in Puran Singh and Others v State of Punjab and Others . We have considered his contention. Review is not an appeal in disguise. Law relating to review is contained in Order 47, Rule 1 of the CPC and in the matter of review of order under Article 226 of the Constitution or appeals therefrom principles under Order 47, Rule 1 are to control and determine the scope of review. (See: Aribam Tuleshwar Sharma v Aribam Pishak Sharma and Others). The same principles have been followed by this Court in C.N. Byrappa (deceased) by L.Rs v State of Karnataka and Others. It will be appropriate at this stage to quote the following observations of the Supreme Court in M/s. Thungabhadra Industries Limited v Government of Andhra Pradesh , where their Lordships have dealt with 'error apparent'. Their Lordships observed in para 11 of the judgment that 'a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is re-heard and corrected, but lies only for patent error. We do not consider that this furnishes a suitable occasion for dealing with this difference exhaustively or in any great detail, but it would suffice to say that where without any elaborate arguments one could point to the error and say here is a substantial point of law which stares one in the face and there could reasonably be no two opinions entertained about it, a clear case of error apparent on the face of the record would be 'made out'. These observations clearly indicate that where to point error elaborate arguments have to be made and where there is possibility of two views, then it cannot be an 'error apparent'. This view has further affirmed and followed in the later decisions of the Supreme Court in Smt. Meera Bhanja v Smt. Nirmala Kumari and Parson Devi v Sumitra Devi. (paras 7 to 9)',
	(int) 4 => '<p>5. Applying this yardstick when we examine the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioners, in our opinion, this cannot be said to be a case of error apparent on the record. The decision relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioners viz., Puran Singh's case, supra, is of no assistance to the present applicants/petitioners. The reason is that in that case, their Lordships had considered the question of application of CPC to writ proceedings in the context of Section 141 of the CPC as amended. By amendment of Section 141 of the CPC and adding to Section 141 the Parliament provided that for the purpose of that Section 141 of the CPC the expression 'proceedings' includes 'proceedings under Order 9 of the CPC, but it does not include any proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution'. That being the position and with reference to Section 141 of the CPC, there cannot be two opinions that by virtue of and on the basis of Section 141, it cannot be said that Code of Civil Procedure will be applicable to the writ proceedings. But if the rules framed under Article 225 by the High Court specifically provide for application of the CPC or for an application of any of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure to writ proceedings that will stand on a different footing. In those cases, where rules specifically provide that CPC will be made applicable, then on the basis of that rule framed under Article 225 of the Constitution, the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure will apply to proceedings under Article 226/227 and not on the basis of Section 141 of the CPC. In the case of Puran Singh, referred to above, their Lordships after having referred to Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules observed that Rule 32 of the Punjab writ rules does not specifically make the provisions of Code applicable to petitions under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The present case is a different case. Here rules framed with reference to the writ petitions and contained in the Karnataka High Court Act and Rules Publication at page 241, particularly Rule 39 specifically provides and reads as under:',
	(int) 5 => '<p>'Application of the High Court of Karnataka Rules etc. -- The provisions of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959, the rules made by the High Court of Karnataka under the Karnataka Court Fees and Suits Valuation Act, 1958 and the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 shall apply, as far as may be, to proceedings under Article 226 and/or 227, and writ rules in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made in these rules'.',
	(int) 6 => '<p>This rule is very clear. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in view of the specific rule made under the Karnataka Act observed that the High Court of Karnataka in Rokyayabi v Ismail Khan and Others, had held that the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure is applicable to writ petitions and writ appeals. Their Lordships did not hold that the view expressed by the Division Bench of this Court in the above-mentioned case in Rokyayabi was erroneous or wrong. In view of the above circum-stances and in the context of the specific language used in explanation in Section 141 of the CPC in Puran Singh's case, supra, cannot be said to be of any help to the applicants for the reason that the question of application of CPC in the context of Section 141 had only been considered. Particularly, when Rule 32 of the Punjab Writ Rules, according to their Lordships, did not specifically make the CPC applicable to the proceedings under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in that matter. Thus considered the decision in Puran Singh's case, supra, is distinguishable and is not applicable to the present case.',
	(int) 7 => '<p>6. In Rokyayabi's case, supra, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Hon'ble Mr. V.S. Malimath, J. and Hon'ble Mr. N. Venkatachala, J. (as they then were), after referring and quoting to Rule 39 had been pleased to observe as under:',
	(int) 8 => '<p>'It is therefore clear that though the provisions of the CPC are not made automatically applicable having regard to the explanation to Section 141, the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable by a specific rule made by this Court under Article 225. Rule 39 of the said rules provides that the provisions of the CPC shall apply as far as may be to the proceedings under Article 226 and writ appeals in respect of matters for which no specific provision is made under the said rules. It is on the basis of the Division Bench held that the provisions of CPC were applicable'.',
	(int) 9 => '<p>7. In a later decision as well namely in the case of C.N. Byrappa, supra, another Division Bench after referring to Rule 39, laid it down asunder:',
	(int) 10 => '<p>'It becomes obvious that the provision of the Code of Civil Procedure will apply not only to writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution but also to writ appeals arising therefrom, provided no specific provision is made in these rules in connection with any such matter'.',
	(int) 11 => '<p>8. The Division Bench case of this Court not having been overruled by the Supreme Court or by subsequent decision is yet good and binding. It is by virtue of Rule 39 of High Court Rules (of Karnataka High Court) provision of Code do apply to proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. No rule to contrary has been shown to be contained in the rules itself dealing with substitution and abatement so provision of Order 22 of the Code do apply to writ proceeding under Article 226 and appeals therefrom. Thus considered, in our opinion, the order impugned does not appear to be one suffering from any error of law apparent on the face of the record. Thus, in our considered opinion, the review petition is misconceived and it is to be and is hereby dismissed.<p>',
	(int) 12 => '<p>'
)
$paragraphAfter = (int) 1
$cnt = (int) 13
$i = (int) 12
include - APP/View/Case/amp.ctp, line 144
View::_evaluate() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 971
View::_render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 933
View::render() - CORE/Cake/View/View.php, line 473
Controller::render() - CORE/Cake/Controller/Controller.php, line 963
Dispatcher::_invoke() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 200
Dispatcher::dispatch() - CORE/Cake/Routing/Dispatcher.php, line 167
[main] - APP/webroot/index.php, line 109

Subject	Civil
Court	Karnataka High Court
Decided On	Oct-27-1999
Case Number	Civil Petition No. 333 of 1997
Judge	Hari Nath Tilhari and;B.S. Sreenivasa Rao, JJ.
Reported in	2000(1)KarLJ34
Acts	Constitution of India - Articles 225, 226 and 227; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 141 - Order 22, Rule 4 - Order 47, Rule 1; High Court of Karnataka Writ Proceedings Rules, 1977 - Rule 39; Punjab Writ Rules - Rules 32 and 39
Appellant	D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another
Respondent	State of Karnataka and Others
Appellant Advocate	Sri O. Shivaram Bhat, Adv.
Respondent Advocate	Sri B.V. Pinto, Adv.

D. Thimmappa Sheika and Another Vs. State of Karnataka and Others - Court Judgment