Allowed

Pushpa Rai v. the Deputy Secretary

Karnataka HC24 Mar 2023RP/2/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka, through Justice M G Uma, allowed four Review Petitions filed by various petitioners against orders passed in Regional Appeals. The Court relied on the observation by the Apex Court in SLP CC Nos.22460-22461/2016 that the High Court had considered only one issue, permitting a review. The Court allowed the petitions to ensure justice and restored the respective Regional

What did the court decide?

The Review Petitions numbered RP No. 2 of 2017, RP No. 3 of 2017, RP No. 139 of 2017, and RP No. 40 of 2018 are allowed, and the respective Regional Appeals are restored for hearing on merits.

Pushpa Rai Vs the Deputy Secretary — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

1 - RP No. 2 of 2017 C/W RP No. 3 of 2017 RP No. 139 of 2017 RP No. 40 of 2018

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶3

DATED THIS THE 24^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE M G UMA

¶6

REVIEW PETITION NO.2 OF 2017

¶7

C/W

¶8

REVIEW PETITION NO.3 OF 2017, REVIEW PETITION NO.139 OF 2017,

¶9

REVIEW PETITION NO.40 OF 2018

¶10

IN R.P. No.2 OF 2017

¶11

BETWEEN:

¶12

PUSHPA RAI AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, W/O. RAMESH RAI, SHOP PREMISES NO.37, BDA INDIRANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 038. ... PETITIONER

¶13

Digitally signed by SUNITHA GANGARAJU Location: High Court Of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶17

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020. ... RESPONDENTS

¶18

RP No. 2 of 2017 C/W RP No. 3 of 2017 RP No. 139 of 2017 RP No. 40 of 2018

¶19

¶20

(BY SRI M.V. VEDAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 - SERVED)

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 06/05/2016 PASSED IN RFA NO.459/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.

¶22

IN R.P. No.3 OF 2017

¶23

BETWEEN:

¶24

KARNATAKA FISHERIES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD., REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, V.K. SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, SHOP PREMISES, NO.34 & 35, BDA INDIRANAGARA COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 038. ... PETITIONER

¶25

(BY SRI SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶28

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020. ... RESPONDENTS

¶29

(BY SRI M.V. VEDAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 - SERVED)

¶30

RP No. 2 of 2017 C/W RP No. 3 of 2017 RP No. 139 of 2017 RP No. 40 of 2018

¶31

¶32

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 06/05/2016 PASSED IN RFA NO.483/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.

¶33

IN R.P. No.139 OF 2017

¶34

BETWEEN:

¶35

R.K. BALU AGED ABOUT 74 YEARS, S/O. RENGASAMI, SHOP PREMISES NO.76, BDA INDIRANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 038. ... PETITIONER

¶36

(BY SRI SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶37

AND:

¶38

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

¶39

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶40

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,

¶41

T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020. ... RESPONDENTS

¶42

(BY SRI B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 - SERVED)

¶43

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 06/05/2016 PASSED IN RFA NO.539/2016, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.

¶44

¶45

RP No. 2 of 2017 C/W RP No. 3 of 2017 RP No. 139 of 2017 RP No. 40 of 2018

¶46

IN R.P. No.40 OF 2018

¶47

BETWEEN:

¶48

RAMESH RAI (SINCE DECEASED) REP. BY LR. PUSHPA RAI W/O. LATE RAMESH RAI, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, SHOP PREMISES NO.22, BDA INDIRANAGAR SHOPPING COMPLEX, BANGALORE - 560 038. ... PETITIONER

¶49

(BY SRI SAMPAT ANAND SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

¶50

AND:

¶51

THE DEPUTY SECRETARY

¶52

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020.

¶53

BANGALORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560 020. ... RESPONDENTS

¶54

(BY SRI M.V. VEDAMURTHY, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 - SERVED)

¶55

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO RFA NO.578/2016 AND GRANT A REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 06.05.2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RFA NO.578/2016 AND ALLOW THE ABOVE APPEAL.

¶56

THESE REVIEW PETITIONS COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶57

RP No. 2 of 2017 C/W RP No. 3 of 2017 RP No. 139 of 2017 RP No. 40 of 2018

¶58

¶59

ORDER

¶60

Heard Sri. Sampat Anand Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioners in all the review petitions and Sri. M.V.Vedamurthy, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in R.P No.2/2017, 3/2017 and 40/2018 and Sri. B.Lethif, learned counsel for respondent No.1 in R.P.139/2017 on merits.

¶61

The main ground urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners in all the review petitions is that this court had considered only one issue to dispose of the R.F.A. No.483/2016. When the same was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in Special Leave to appeal in CC Nos.22460-22461/2016, the delay was condoned and it was observed that the petitioners can approach the High Court impugning the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate bench of this Court, since it is decided only on one issue, whereas the other issues raised were not considered. In view of the same, these review petitions were filed. Hence, he pray for allowing the petitions in the interest of justice.

¶62

The Apex Court passed the order dated 02.12.2016 which reads as under:

¶63

6 - RP No. 2 of 2017 C/W RP No. 3 of 2017 RP No. 139 of 2017 RP No. 40 of 2018

¶64

'Delay condoned.

¶65

It is submitted that the High Court by the impugned judgment has decided only one issue whereas many other issues were raised as is clear from the grounds of appeal. It is also submitted that even the written statements were filed touching upon other issues as well.

¶66

If that is the case, it would be appropriate for the petitioners to first approach the High Court by filing necessary review petition in this behalf.

¶67

In case review petition is dismissed, the petitioner shall be at the liberty not only to challenge the order passed in the review but also impugned order as well.

¶68

In view of the above, special leave petitions are disposed of accordingly.'

¶69

Learned counsel for the respondents has no objection to allow the review petitions, since the same were filed on the basis of the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Hence, I am of the opinion that the review petitions could be allowed. The parties may be heard on merits on all the grounds.

¶70

Accordingly, the review petitions are allowed .

¶71

¶72

RP No. 2 of 2017 C/W RP No. 3 of 2017 RP No. 139 of 2017 RP No. 40 of 2018

¶73

RFA No.459/2016 is restored in R.P No.2/2017, RFA No.483/2016 is restored in RP No.3/2017, RFA No.539/2016 is restored in RP No.139/2017 and RFA No.578/2016 is R.P No.40/2018.

¶74

Sd/JUDGE

¶75

SKS

Pushpa Rai v. the Deputy Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pushpa Rai v. the Deputy Secretary

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt. Muniyamma Vs Sri. B. L. Keshava Kumar

Sri Ganeshachari Vs Bruhath Bangalore Mahanagara Palike

Smt H Siddamma Vs Smt Gangamma

Smt Padma Vs Sri Manjunath v

Smt Galamma Vs Sri Venkatesh

Sri Puttaswamy Vs Sri Siddaiah S/O Late Sri Rachaiah