Allowed

Smt.Papamma v. Sri S M Krishnappa

Karnataka HC22 Dec 2021WA/132/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ appeal, the High Court held that the order allowing a review petition was unsustainable because the learned Single Judge did not indicate the error apparent on the face of the record or assign reasons for the review. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned order, remitted the matter to the Single Judge for fresh consideration, and listed the review petition.

What did the court decide?

The writ appeal is allowed; the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 in RP.No.350/2017 is set aside; the matter is remitted to the learned Single Judge to consider the review petition afresh; the review pe

Smt.Papamma Vs Sri S M Krishnappa — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON’BLE MR. RITU RAJ AWASTHI, CHIEF JUSTICE AND

¶5

THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM

¶6

WRIT APPEAL NO.132 OF 2021 (LR)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SMT.PAPAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR SRI.PRAKASH BABU S/O.LATE MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS R/AT NO.55, 1^ST CROSS TAVAREKERE BENGALURU – 560 081 ... APPELLANT

¶9

(BY SMT.PRAMILA NESARGI, SR.ADVOCATE FOR SMT.BINDU U., ADVOCATE)

¶10

AND:

¶11

SRI S.M.KRISHNAPPA

¶12

S/O.LATE MUNISWAMAPPA

¶13

R/AT SALUNUNASE VILLAGE

¶14

KAGGALIPURA DHAKLE

¶15

UTTARAHALLI HOBLI

¶16

BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK – 560 062

¶17

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP.BY ITS SECRETARY

¶18

REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI

¶19

BENGALURU – 560 001

¶20

THE LAND TRIBUNAL

¶21

REP.BY ITS CHAIRMAN

¶22

¶23

BENGALURU SOUTH TALUK BENGALURU – 560 009

¶24

SRI B.K.GOVINDARAJU

¶25

SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR SMT.BHARATHI D/O.B.K.GOVINDARAJU MAJOR R/AT NO.13, WATSON ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 ... RESPONDENTS

¶26

(BY SRI H.N.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; SRI S.S.MAHENDRA, AGA FOR R-2)

¶27

¶28

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 13.12.2019 IN REVIEW PETITION NO.350/2017 PASSED BY THIS COURT AND ETC.

¶29

THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING THIS DAY, SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

¶30

JUDGMENT

¶31

With consent of learned counsel for the parties,

¶32

matter is taken up for final disposal.

¶33

Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for first respondent. Perused the records.

¶34

The appellant herein feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19.02.2009 passed by the third respondent/Land Tribunal (for short ‘the tribunal’) approached the writ Court

¶35

¶36

by filing a writ petition in WP.No.14292/2009. The learned Single Judge having heard the rival claim made by the appellant and the first respondent herein was of the view that the Tribunal has not conducted an enquiry by following the mandatory provisions of Rule 17 of the Karnataka Land Reform Rules, 1974. Learned Single Judge was also of the view that the records were not at all examined and there was no proper appreciation of material on record and therefore, a categorical finding was recorded by the learned Single Judge at para-5 that there is manifest error in the order of the Tribunal. Therefore, on these set of grounds, learned Single Judge vide order dated 21.02.2017 has set aside the order passed by the Tribunal and remitted the matter back for fresh consideration. The first respondent herein feeling aggrieved by the remand order filed a review petition in RP.No.350/2017. The first respondent urged before the Court that there is an error apparent on the face of the record and therefore, the order under review needs to be interfered with. This Court on 13.12.2019 has allowed the review petition by setting aside the order dated 21.02.2017.

¶37

¶38

The learned Senior Counsel reiterating the grounds urged in the appeal memo vehemently argued and contended before this Court that learned Single Judge while allowing the review petition has not at all indicated the error apparent on the face of the order. To buttress her arguments, she would take this Court to para-3 of the order under challenge and submits learned Single Judge has not at all assigned any reason and the order under challenge does not indicate the existence of requisite ingredients of Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. Therefore, she would submit to this Court that the impugned order passed in RP.No.350/2017 is not at all sustainable.

¶39

Per contra, learned counsel for the first respondent would submit to this Court that though the order does not indicate the reason for reviewing the order, however, the learned Single Judge has dealt with the case and has rightly passed an order thereby reviewing the order passed in WP.No.14292/2009 and therefore, the same may not warrant any interference at the hands of this Court.

¶40

We have heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant and learned counsel for first respondent.

¶41

¶42

We have given our anxious consideration to the order under challenge and on perusal of para-3 of the order, we would find that no reasons are forthcoming to review the order passed in WP.No.14292/2009. Therefore, we are of the view that the order under challenge is not sustainable and matter deserves to be remitted back to the Court to consider review petition afresh.

¶43

For the reasons stated supra , we allow the writ appeal and the impugned order dated 13.12.2019 passed in RP.No.350/2017 by this Court, is set aside. Matter is remitted back to the learned Single Judge.

¶44

List the review petition on 24.01.2022 before the appropriate Court with a request to decide the same as expeditiously as possible.

¶45

Sd/CHIEF JUSTICE

¶46

Sd/JUDGE

¶47

Smt.Papamma v. Sri S M Krishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt.Papamma v. Sri S M Krishnappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Confederation of Real Estate Developers Association Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Roopa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri G Srinivas Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Budeppa Bommappa Gubbi Vs the State of Karnataka

Prestige Estates Projects Limited Vs the Additional Chief Secretary

Sri G O Thippesh Vs the State of Karnataka