Single judge rejected a review petition filed under CPC Order XLVII due to lack of cognizable interest as the issue was already considered. Granted an extension of time by six months for representations.
Review petition rejected; time limit for representations extended by six months; contentions kept open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
REVIEW PETITION NO.206 OF 2020
BETWEEN:
THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KAVERI NEERAVARI NIGAMA LTD., NO. 10, H.L.B.C. SUB-DIVISION, BOOKANAKERE VILLAGE, BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 812.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. K.S.BHEEMAIAH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1 . SRI. M .H. LAKKEGOWDA, S/O LATE HANUME GOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS
2 . CHANDRAMMA, W/O LAKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS ,
BOTH ARE THE RESIDENTS OF MATTIKERE VILLAGE, BOOKANAKERE HOBLI, KRISHNARAJAPETE TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT – 571 812.
3 . THE SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE 1ST FLOOR, MANDYA, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401.
4 . THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 401 (RESPONDENTS NO.3 & 4 ARE THE FORMAL PARTIES)
…RESPONDENTS
2
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO A) REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 11/01/2019 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NOS. 53824-53825/2018 (LA-RES) WHICH IS AT ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.,
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
The Review Petition is rejected since the direction was only to consider the representations of the writ petitioner in accordance with law and nothing beyond.
The contentions urged in support of the review could have been the result of consideration itself and thus there is no sufficient cognizable interest in the review petition which is a sine qua non under Order XLVII Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908 as adopted by the Rule 37 Writ Proceedings Rules of 1977.
However, the period of three months prescribed at para 3 of the Judgment in review is extended by another six moths.
All contentions of the parties are kept open.
Sd/JUDGE
DS
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a review petition is maintainable when the relief sought was already considered by the court previously.
Whether the period for filing representations should be extended under the revision of the writ order.
4 provisions across 2 enactments
The Assistant Executive Engineer Kaveri Neeravari Nigama Ltd.
Sri. M. H. Lakkegowda
Chandamma
The Special Land Acquisition Officer
The Deputy Commissioner
Krishna S. Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
