Review petition challenging the disposal of an additional evidence application in an appeal regarding land partition was allowed due to mistake apparent on record.
Review petition allowed; earlier order in RSA No.119/2018 dated 10.3.2023 reviewed and recalled; matter listed for fresh consideration on merits.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 4TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REVIEW PETITION NO.177 OF 2023
IN
R.S.A.No. No.119 OF 2018
BETWEEN:
SRI GOVINDAPPA S/O VENKATESHAPPA @ KATHEPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, R/AT NAYANAHALLI MAJARA, KOTHUR VILLAGE, BETHAMANGALA NEW TOWN, BETHAMANGALA HOBLI, BANGARPET TALUK – 563 116
…PETITIONER (BY SRI. RAGHAVENDRA RAO K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by SHARANYA T Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
SRI CHIKKA VENKATASWAMI BOVI SINCE DEAD BY HIS LRS
…RESPONDENTS
NC: 2023:KHC:31758 RP No. 177 of 2023
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN R.S.A.NO.119/2018 DATED 10.03.2023, ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION AND PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS AS THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT TO GRANT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the petitioner’s counsel and also the counsel appearing for the respondents.
NC: 2023:KHC:31758 RP No. 177 of 2023
record. This non-consideration has resulted in answering the first substantial question of law in negative. Therefore, the petitioner is seeking review of the judgment passed by this Hon’ble Court.
NC: 2023:KHC:31758 RP No. 177 of 2023
schedule property and the same is in existence since 21.12.1966 in Sy.No.39 and hence, even in the absence of said document the plaintiffs have proved their case and same is also discussed in paragraph No.18 of this Court order and hence not committed any error and while considering the substantive question of law framed by this Court are answered in detail having considering the material on record.
i) Whether the petitioner has made out the ground to review the order dated 10.3.2023 passed in
R.S.A.No.119/2018.
ii) Whether there is a mistake apparent on record while passing such an order?
iii) What order?
Point Nos.1 and 2:
NC: 2023:KHC:31758 RP No. 177 of 2023
in the name of Bodappa by way of filing application under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC and also made reference that certified copy of the Akar bandh is also produced before this Court, wherein 22 guntas of karab and 2 acre 20 guntas cultivable land is shown in Sy.No.39.
NC: 2023:KHC:31758 RP No. 177 of 2023
standing in the name of Suresh and Indiramma, only 2 acre 20 guntas in Sy.No.28/P6 was sold in favour of the plaintiff No.1 as per Ex.D4.At Ex.D4, the said 22 guntas of Karab is not shown.
NC: 2023:KHC:31758 RP No. 177 of 2023
there is a force in the contention of the counsel appearing for the review petitioner counsel that before giving such finding, the First Appellate Court taken note of the additional documents which have been produced before the First Appellate Court i.e. phody document and also the Akar bandh document and this has not been discussed in the judgment of this Court in R.S.A.No.119/2018 vide order dated 10.3.2023 and no doubt this Court while answering substantive question of law in respect of item No.2 is concerned, in paragraph No.18 taken note of the fact that, though the documents are produced, the First Appellate Court has not been allowed the I.A. and also disposed of by giving the reasoning in paragraph No.39 under such application, only sought permission to produce the certified copy of Tippany and Karnataka Revision Settlement Akar Bandh. But those documents are not considered by the First Appellate Court and having perused the reasoning given by the First Appellate Court in paragraphs No.28 to 31 and the same has been discussed taking into note of the phody as well as the Akar Bandh, in order to comes to a conclusion of the possession of the respondents to the extent of 22 guntas of karab land and when such finding is given and
though an observation is made in paragraph No.39 that in the absence of those documents also Court can comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has proved the same and the same has been extracted by this Court in paragraph No.18 and having perused the entire judgment of this Court and paragraphs No.28 to 31 regarding discussion made by the First Appellate Court with regard to the additional documents which have been produced and the same is not discussed in the order. Hence, it requires to review the order and there is a apparent mistake on record in not considering paragraphs No.28 to 31 while passing the order and hence, I am of the opinion that review petitioner has made out the ground to review the order, since mistake apparent on record is not considering the discussion made by the First Appellate Court in paragraphs No.28 to 31.
NC: 2023:KHC:31758 RP No. 177 of 2023
the additional document is concerned, and this Court also while admitting the second appeal framed the issue with regard to discussion made in respect of the additional documents and no doubt the First Appellate Court while disposing of the regular appeal made an observation that I.A. is disposed of and hence, the same has to be considered in RSA by recalling the order of this Court and hence, Review Petition is allowed and the order dated 10.3.2023 is hereby reviewed and matter has to be considered afresh in keeping the contentions urged by the review petitioner also looking into the paragraphs No.28 to 31 while considering the matter on merits and hence, I answer the points as affirmative.
following:
ORDER
Review Petition is allowed. Earlier Order passed in RSA No.119/2018 dated 10.3.2023 is hereby reviewed and recalled.
NC: 2023:KHC:31758 RP No. 177 of 2023
List the matter before the concerned roster bench for consideration of R.S.A. on merits in view of reviewing the order. The Registry is directed to secure the records of the Trial Court and also the First Appellate Court.
Sd/JUDGE
AP
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 54
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner made out the ground to review the order dated 10.3.2023?
Whether there is a mistake apparent on the record in not considering the First Appellate Court's paragraphs 28 to 31 discussing the Karab land?
What order should be passed?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SRI GOVINDAPPA S/O VENKATESHAPPA @ KATHEPPA
SRI. N H REHMAN S/O LATE HYDER SAB AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS
SMT. DILSHAD BEGUM W/O N H REHMAN AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS
SRI VENKATESHAPPA S/O VENKATESHAPPA @ KATHEPPA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS
SRI MUNIYAPPA S/O VENKATESHAPPA @ KATHEPPA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS
SMT MUNILAKSHMAMMA W/O GOVINDAPPA AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
H.P.SANDESH
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
