Dismissed

Smt. Gouravva W/O. Shankargouda Baadiyavar v. Smt. Pampavati

Karnataka HC2 Dec 2022RP/100014/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a review petition filed to recall an earlier order dismissing a writ petition. The court held the review was an abuse of process due to vague, unsubstantiated allegations against an advocate made without prior action or opportunity to defend.

What did the court decide?

No relief granted; review petition dismissed as no grounds were made out.

Smt. Gouravva W/O. Shankargouda Baadiyavar Vs Smt… — Service and Employment | Karnataka HC (2022)

¶1

¶2

RP No. 100014 of 2022

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH

¶4

DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2022

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

¶7

REVIEW PETITION NO. 100014 OF 2022 IN WRIT PETITION NO.148591/2020 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SMT. KASHAVVA W/O.GADIGEPPA HOOLIKATTI SINCE DECEASED BY HER LEGAL HEIRS

¶10

SMT. GOURVVA W/O. SHANKARAGOUDA BAADIYAVAR AGE 57 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. HANGARAKI VILLAGE TQ AND DIST DHARWAD-581105

¶11

SMT. RENUKA W/O. BASAPPA HANGARAKI AGE 55 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD R/O. HANGARAKI VILLAGE TQ AND DIST DHARWAD-581105

¶12

SMT SHAILA, W/O. DANAGOUDA PATIL AGE 53 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD R/O. C/O. BASAPPA HANGARAKI TQ AND DIST DHARWAD-581105

¶13

…PETITIONERS

¶14

Digitally signed by SUJATA SUBHASH PAMMAR

¶15

(BY SMT. P R BENTUR, ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

SMT. PAMPAVATI, W/O. MARIGOUDA PATIL AGE 60 YEARS, OCC HOUSEHOLD WORK R/O. KASABA GOUDAR ONI NEAR KAMANAKATTI, DHARWAD TQ AND DIST DHARWAD-580001

¶18

…RESPONDENT

¶19

¶20

RP No. 100014 of 2022

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 151 OF CPC, PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS IN WRIT PETITION NO.148591/2020 AND RECAL/REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 28.10.2021 IN WP NO.148591/2020 WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND ETC.

¶22

THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶23

ORDER

¶24

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

¶25

i. Call for the records in Writ Petition No.148591/2020.

¶26

ii. Recall/Review the order dated 28.10.2021 in W.P.No.148591/2020.

¶27

iii. And pass such other and further reliefs as deemed fit under the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.

¶28

By way of an order dated 28.10.2021, this Court was pleased to dismiss the writ petition No.148591/2020. The said writ petition had been filed seeking for quashing the compromise decree dated 19.09.2020 passed in O.S.No.285/2020. While dismissing the said writ petition, this Court has categorically observed that the compromise petition bears the thumb impression of the petitioner and she has been identified by her counsel.

¶29

¶30

RP No. 100014 of 2022

¶31

Though the Lok Adalath was conducted in the electronic mode, if indeed the contention of the petitioner is correct, the petitioner could have taken some action against the counsel for the petitioner, who has identified her. No action having been taken, the compromise petition bearing the thumb impression was identified by the counsel, this Court dismissed the writ petition.

¶32

In the Review Petition, there are no fresh grounds which have been made out except to once again allege that the compromise petition does not disclose that it is supported by any identity proof. But as regards any action taken against the advocate, who represents the petitioner, it is reiterated that no such action has been taken and in this regard the decision of this Court in W.P.No.466/2012 is relied upon, more particularly para 7 thereof, to contend that, if there is an abuse of process of Lok Adalath made out, the compromise entered into before the Lok Adalath is required to be set aside.

¶33

In the present case, I am of the considered opinion that the filing of the review petition is an abuse of process of the

¶34

¶35

RP No. 100014 of 2022

¶36

Court inasmuch as vague and unsubstantiated allegations are made against an advocate who represented the petitioner, without taking any action and affording an opportunity to the said advocate to defend himself. The said allegation made against an officer of the Court in his absence is not permissible and sustainable. Despite an observation to that effect having been made in the order dated 28.10.2021, even till this date no action has been taken nor any explanation furnished for not doing so. That only would indicate that the allegation made by the petitioner against the said advocate is false.

¶37

The compromise petition bearing the thumb impression of the petitioner is identified by the counsel and such a compromise petition cannot be sought to be negated by making unsubstantiated allegations.

¶38

Hence no grounds having been made out, the review petition stands dismissed.

¶39

Sd/-

¶40

JUDGE

¶41

gab List No.: 1 Sl No.: 1

Smt. Gouravva W/O. Shankargouda Baadiyavar v. Smt. Pampavati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Gouravva W/O. Shankargouda Baadiyavar v. Smt. Pampavati

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

The Divisional Controller, K.S.R.T.C. Vs C. M. Mallikarjunaswamy S/O Madaiah

C M Mallikarjuna Swamy S/O Madaiah, Vs the Divisional Controller

Stanzen Links (India) Ltd., Vs Sri D K Narayana

Hanamant Vs Sunil

Shri. Vasant Durgappa Harijan Vs Shri. Shantappa Durgappa Harijan

Sri. Ashok S/O Shankrappa Malladad Vs Sri. Basayya S/O Paramayya Hiriyalmath