Dismissed

Sri. Bhimappa S/O Basappa Bidargaddi v. Govindappa S/O Mushappa Bidaragaddi

Karnataka HC19 Feb 2021RP/100007/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This review petition filed after a 27-day delay was dismissed as not worth admission. The court found the petitioner was urging identical grounds already rejected in the disposed second appeal, with no error apparent on the face of the record. Proceedings were disposed without notice to respondents.

What did the court decide?

Review Petition and I.A. No. 1/2018 dismissed without issuing notice to respondents; pending IAs also dismissed.

Sri. Bhimappa S/O Basappa Bidargaddi Vs… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA DHARWAD BENCH

¶2

DATED THIS THE 19^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2021

¶3

BEFORE

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR

¶5

R.P. NO. 100007/2018 IN R.S.A. NO. 5275/2008

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

SRI BHIMAPPA SON OF BASAPPA BIDARGADDI, AGE: MAJOR, AGRICULTURIST, RESIDING AT NARENDRA VILLAGE, DHARWAD TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT-580 005.

¶8

PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI RAJASHEKAR GUNJALLI, ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

GOVINDAPPA SON OF MUSHAPPA BIDARAGADDI, RESIDENT OF NARENDRA VILLAGE, DHARWAD TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LEGAL HEIR WIFE

¶12

SMT. ANASUYA WIFE OF LATE GOVINDAPPA BIDARAGADDI, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENT OF NARENDRA VILLAGE, DHARWAD TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT.

¶13

SMT. YALLAVVA WIFE OF MUSHAPPA BIDARAGADDI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS SMT. NEELAVVA,

¶14

SMT. NEELAVVA WIFE OF BHIMAPPA PUJAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENT OF AYATTI, NAVALGUND TALUK, DHARWAD DISTRICT.

¶15

: 2 :

¶16

SMT. ANASAVVA WIFE OF GOVINDAPPA BIDARAGADDI, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF NARENDRA, TALUK & DISTRICT : DHARWAD. WIFE OF PREDECEASED SON R2.

¶17

HANAMANTAPPA SON OF YALLAPPA BIDARAGADDI, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶18

PARAVVA WIFE OF HANAMANTAPPA BIDARAGADDI, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENT OF NARENDRA-580 005.

¶19

TALUK & DISTRICT DHARWAD.

¶20

MADIWALAPPA SON OF HANAMANTAPPA BIDARAGADDI, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF NARENDRA-580 005. TALUK & DISTRICT DHARWAD.

¶21

YALLAPPA SON OF HANAMANTAPPA BIDARAGADDI, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF NARENDRA-580 005. TALUK & DISTRICT DHARWAD.

¶22

MUSHAPPA SON OF HANAMANTAPPA BIDARAGADDI, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, RESIDENT OF NARENDRA-580 005.

¶23

TALUK & DISTRICT DHARWAD.

¶24

FAKIRAVVA WIFE OF NEELAPPA SUNAGAR, AGED ABOUT 34 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENT OF KYARAKOPPA-580 007, TALUK & DISTRICT DHARWAD.

¶25

BASAMMA D/O HANAMANTAPPA BIDARAGADDI, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS, OCC. HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDENT OF NARENDRA -580 005, TALUK & DISTRICT DHARWAD.

¶26

SMT. BHIMAVVA WIFE OF YALLAPPA BIDARAGADDI, MAJOR, OCC.; HOUSEHOLDWORK, RESIDING AT NARENDRA, TALUK & DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶27

: 3 :

¶28

SMT. FAKKIRAVVA WIFE OF BHEEMAPPA JALAGAR, MAJOR, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDING AT NARENDRA, TALUK & DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶29

12, YALLAPPA SON OF BASAPPA BIDARGADDI, MAJOR, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT NARENDRA, TALUK & DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶30

RUDRAPPA SON OF BASAPPA BIDARGADDI, MAJOR, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT NARENDRA, TALUK & DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶31

HANAMANTAPPA SON OF BASAPPA BIDARGADDI, MAJOR, OCC.: AGRICULTURE, RESIDING AT NARENDRA, TALUK & DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶32

SMT. YALLAVVA WIFE OF MAHADEVAPPA BYATASGER, MAJOR, OCC.: HOUSEHOLD WORK, RESIDING AT KALLUR, TALUK & DISTRICT: DHARWAD.

¶33

RESPONDENTS

¶34

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII

¶35

RULE 1 OF CPC SEEKING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED

¶36

07.11.2017 PASSED IN R.S.A. NO. 5275/2008 & ETC.

¶37

THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

¶38

DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶39

: 4 :

¶40

ORDER

¶41

This review petition is filed by the second appellant seeking review of the judgment dated 07.11.2017 passed in R.S.A. No. 5275/2008.

¶42

Petitioner’s counsel is present. I.A. No. 1/2018 is filed under section 5 of the Limitation Act as there is delay of 27 days in filing this review petition. This delay can not be condoned without giving notice to the respondents.

¶43

Before issuing notice, if it is examined whether there are prima facie materials to admit this review petition, it is found that the petitioner who is appellant No.2 is urging the same grounds that he urged when the matter was argued on merits of the second appeal disposed of on 07.11.2017.

¶44

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that occupancy rights granted to a tenant on the basis of Form No.7A of the Land Reforms Act will enure to the individual’s benefit and not to the joint family. Finding

¶45

: 5 :

¶46

that both the Courts had concurrently held that the grant was to the joint family and that the substantial question of law in this regard would not arise, second appeal was dismissed. The same point is again urged. Error apparent on the face of the record does not appear. When this review petition is not worth admission, it is unnecessary to issue notice to the respondent. Therefore, I.A. No. 1/2018 as well as review petition is dismissed. In view of dismissal of the review petition, pending IAs, if any, also stand dismissed.

¶47

SD/JUDGE

¶48

bvv

Sri. Bhimappa S/O Basappa Bidargaddi v. Govindappa S/O Mushappa Bidaragaddi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Bhimappa S/O Basappa Bidargaddi v. Govindappa S/O Mushappa Bidaragaddi

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Khayum Khan Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Rahul Thonse Vs State of Karnataka

Sri Muniyappa Vs State of Karnataka

Gadigeppa S/O Shivappa Kori Vs Kumari Vindi D/O Shivappa Kori

Keshari W/O Chandrashekar Vs Mallikarjunayya S/O Gurusiddayya Rabakavimath

Usman Karim Mulla Vs Appalal