A review petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 CPC was dismissed by the Karnataka High Court, holding that the ground of delay and laches was already fully addressed in the original writ judgment and review jurisdiction is restrictive.
The review petition was rejected accordingly.
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 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2021
BEFORE
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KRISHNA S.DIXIT
REVIEW PETITION NO.308 OF 2021 IN WRIT PETITION NO.13803 OF 2020 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
SMT. SUVARNAMMA W/O. D R RAMAKRISHNAIAH, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, THUNGASHREE NILAYA, C/O VIJAYSHANKAR, 1ST MAIN ROAD, 5TH CROSS, HANUMANTHAPURA, TUMAKUR CITY-572010
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI VIVEK S, ADVOCATE)
AND:
2 . SMT PUSHPAVATHI D/O LATE. KEMPLAIAH, W/O. UDAYAKUMAR AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT DOGGANAHALLI, MALLEKAVU POST, CN DURGA HOBLI, KORATAGERE TALUK-572129
2
KORATAGERE TALUK, TUMAKURU DISTRICT 572129
3
ANANTHARAMAIAH S/O KAMPLAIAH SINCE DEAD BY L.RS
BOTH ARE RESIDENTS OF KUMAR RAMA NILAYA NEAR NATIONAL ENGLISH SCHOOL ARAKERE, YALLAPURA VILLAGE, TUMAKURU 572101.
RESPONDENTS NO.15 & 16 ARE RESIDING AT DOGGANAHALLI MALLEKAVU OST C N DURGA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572129
18 . G JAGADHISHA S/O GADIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS RESIDENT OF VEEROBANAHALLI C N DURGA HOBLI KORATAGERE TALUK TUMKUR DISTRICT-572129
…RESPONDENTS
4
THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION, REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 01/12/2020 PASSED IN WP NO. 13803/2020 AND BE PLEASED TO ALLOW THE REVIEW PETITION, WITH COSTS THROUGHOUT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
No ground is made out for review, since the point of delay and laches has been succinctly treated by this Court in the very judgment made in the writ petition. The same point urged here therefore cannot be treated in review jurisdiction which is restrictive. Review Petition is rejected accordingly.
Sd/JUDGE
KLY/
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the ground of delay and laches argued in the review petition is maintainable in the jurisdiction of review given its restrictive nature.
Whether the review petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC should be allowed or rejected.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. SUVARNAMMA W/O. D R RAMAKRISHNAIAH
RAMASWAMY
SMT PUSHPAVATHI D/O LATE. KEMPLAIAH
LAKSHMIPATHI S/O LATE RAMAIAH
RAMAKRISHNAIAH S/O LATE RAMAIAH
SMT SUMITHRA D/O LATE KODANDAIAH
KRISHNA S.DIXIT
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
