SMT.PARVATHAMMA W/O LATE M. NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, RESIDING AT FLAT NO.101, “PRAKRUTHI ENCLAVE” ANNEXE, No.10/1, 6^TH MAIN, NEW THIPPASANDRA, BENGALURU-560 075

¶26

SRI CHIKKA CHANNAPPA @ CHANNAPPA S/O LATE HANUMANTHA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, RESIDING AT CHIKKATHOGUR, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU 560 100

¶27

…RESPONDENTS

¶28

(BY SRI. B.V.MALLA REDDY, ADVOCATE for R1 to R3)

¶29

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION AND CONSEQUENTLY REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 24/08/2021 (ANNEXURE-A) IN R.S.A.No.570/2021.

¶30

¶31

RP No. 247 of 2022

¶32

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

¶33

ORDER

¶34

This review petition is filed to review the judgment and order dated 24.08.2021 passed in R.S.A.No.570/2021 by this Court.

¶35

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶36

The learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners would submit that a wrong submission was made before the Court that from the year 1985 to 2000, the alleged Will did not see the light of the day and also not produced the said Will before the Trial Court or the First Appellate Court. The said submission is erroneous.

¶37

This Court while considering the matter on merits in paragraph No.9 taken note of the said submission and observed that it is manifest from the records that the plaintiffs never showed any interest to lead evidence and also not produced the original Will upon which they are seeking the relief either before

¶38

¶39

RP No. 247 of 2022

¶40

the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court. Hence, the very conduct of the plaintiffs has to be taken note of. Based on that the Court also imposed the cost of Rs.5 Lakhs. Hence, it requires to be reviewed.

¶41

Per contra , the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 would submit that the submission is with regard to not marking of document i.e., Will before the Trial Court and he has not lead any evidence. Unless the document is marked, even keeping the document in safe custody is not the production of document before the Court and the Court also not taken note of the very said submission and also considered the material on record in paragraph No.10 and came to the conclusion that the two decades had already been elapsed and the plaintiffs have not led any evidence from 2000 to 2017 even though the matter was pending for 17 years. Hence, imposed the cost and not on account of non production of the Will before the Court. Hence, there is no any error apparent on the face of the record before the Court to exercise the review jurisdiction.

¶42

¶43

RP No. 247 of 2022

¶44

Having heard the respective counsel and on perusal of the material available on record, no doubt, the submission was made by the respondents before the Court that the Will did not see the light of the day and also the same is noted in paragraph No.6 of the order of this Court. This Court made an observation in paragraph No.9 that it is manifest from the records that the plaintiffs never showed any interest to lead evidence and also not produced the original Will upon which they are seeking the relief either before the Trial Court or before the First Appellate Court.

¶45

Now, the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners would contend that the documents are produced before the Trial Court and the same are kept in safe custody. Merely because the documents are kept in safe custody is not a ground for production of document unless the document is marked before the Court. The plaintiffs have not led any evidence from 2002 since the issues were framed in 2002 till 2017. Ultimately, the suit was disposed of in the absence of evidence of the plaintiffs and the defendants have examined only the scribe. The defendants have not led any evidence and taking into note of the said fact into consideration, this Court in

¶46

¶47

RP No. 247 of 2022

¶48

paragraph No.10 taken note of the conduct of the appellants/plaintiffs and also mentioned that they have not stepped into the witness box over the period of 17 years from 2000 to 2017, even though the issues were framed in the year 2002. Hence, imposed the cost of Rs.5 Lakhs. Hence, I do not find any merit in the review petition to review the order of this Court. This Court considering the material on record in paragraph Nos.9 and 10 of the judgment remanded the matter with a direction to dispose of the matter within six months from 20.09.2021.

¶49

The learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos.1 to 3 brought to notice of this Court that still the suit is not disposed of and the review petitioners have not co-operating and dragging the matter by filing applications. This Court was given time to the Trial Court to dispose of the matter within six months, the Presiding Officer has not sought any extension of time to dispose of the matter in spite of six months time has already been elapsed and a direction was given on 24.08.2021 to dispose of the matter within six months from 20.09.2021. The learned counsel for the review petitioners also not filed any application for extension of time.

¶50

¶51

RP No. 247 of 2022

¶52

Having taken note of the said fact into consideration

¶53

and the learned counsel appearing for the review petitioners would submit that the matter is listed for arguments. It is borne out from the records that the matter has not been disposed of within six months as directed by this Court and the time stipulation was given within six months from 20.09.2021 now we are in 2023. Hence, the Trial Court is directed to dispose of the matter within one month from today.

¶54

In view of the discussions made above, I pass the

¶55

following:

¶56

ORDER

¶57

The Review Petition is dismissed.

¶58

Sd/JUDGE

¶59

CP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 27

Sri T Manjunatha Reddy v. Sri Kadirappa Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Sri T Manjunatha Reddy v. Sri Kadirappa Reddy

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Puttachari Vs Smt Puttamma

Mr. Ravindra Vs Smt. Rukmini

Mahadevashetty Vs Srinivasa

Naveen @ Smile Naveen Vs State of Karnataka

Smt. Gowramma Vs Sri. Renuka Prasad

Sri Byraiah Vs Sri Dodda Mayanna