The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a review petition filed against an order that had disposed of a writ petition. The court found no illegality or error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
Review petition dismissed as devoid of merits with no interference in the impugned order.
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, BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR REVIEW PETITION No.561 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D.N.NANJUNDA REDDY., SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. GOWTHAMDEV. C. ULLAL., ADVOCATE)
AND:
J. RAMESH S/O JAYARAMAN C/O. S.R. SUBBARAYULU NO.6, 6THMAIN, SAMPIGE LAYOUT VIJAYANAGAR NORTH BENGALURU – 560 079.
…RESPONDENT
(BY SRI. AVATHI RAVINDRANATH., ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 CPC R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW ITS ORDER DATED: 29.03.2021 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN WP NO. 4180/2017 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS , THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
2
ORDER
This review petition is directed against the impugned order dated 29.03.2021 passed in W.P.No.4180/2017 by this Court, whereby the said petition filed by respondent was allowed and disposed of by this Court.
petitioners as well as learned counsel for the respondents and perused the material on record.
Kumar Rawat – Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020 , I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned order nor does it suffer from any error apparent on the face of the record warranting interference by this Court under Section 114 r/w Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, particularly when the entire material on record as well as the contentions urged by the review petitioners have been considered by this Court while passing the impugned order.
3
4. Accordingly, the review petition is devoid of
merits and the same is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Bmc.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the impugned order in W.P. No. 4180/2017 suffers from any error apparent on the face of the record requiring revision under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.
Whether the review petitioners have demonstrated any illegality or infirmity in the earlier judgment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shri Ram Sahu vs Vinod Kumar RawatReferred¶22
Shri Ram Sahu vs Vinod Kumar Rawat – Civil Appeal No.3601/2020 dated 03.11.2020
2 provisions across 1 enactments
The Commissioner, Bangalore Development Authority and Others
J. Ramesh
S.R.Krishna Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
