Review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 CPC seeking rectification of inadvertent error in appeal order dismissed as withdrawn at the counsel's advice to pursue remedy elsewhere.
Review Petition No.30 of 2022 dismissed as withdrawn.
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.
NC: 2023:KHC:35935 RP No. 30 of 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 04TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA
REVIEW PETITION NO.30 OF 2022 IN R.F.A.No.826/2007
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by R MANJUNATHA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
NC: 2023:KHC:35935 RP No. 30 of 2022
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI PRAKASH TIMMANNA HEBBAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
SRI. RAMAREDDY S/O LATE NANJE GOWDA MAJOR IN AGE RESIDING AT HALEURU VILLAGE MADIVALA DHAKALE KASABA HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT BENGALURU - 560 099 …RESPONDENT (BY SMT.P.VIDHYASRI, ADVOCATE)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF R/W SECTION 114 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE PRAYING TO ADMIT THIS REVIEW PETITION, CALL FOR RECORDS FROM THE FILE OF THIS HON’BLE COURT IN RFA NO.826/2007, PERUSE AND REVIEW THE ORDER PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT ON 24.04.2009 IN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL (RFA) NO. 826/2007.
THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Learned counsel for petitioners has filed the Memo which
reads as under:
“The petitioners above named respectfully submit as follows:
The petitioners have filed the above review petition seeking the indulgence of this Hon’ble Court to call for records from the file of this Hon’ble Court in RFA No.826/2007 with a request to review the Order passed by this Hon’ble Court on 24.04.2009 in RFA No.826/2007, to entertain the prayer of the petitioners to rectify an inadvertent error in mentioning the name of the village where the properties, which were the subject matter of the said appeal, were compromised. However, as the said inadvertent mistake was in the plaint as well as in the compromise petition, it is realized that unless the plaint itself is amended rectifying the wrong, the said relief cannot be granted in the review petition, the
NC: 2023:KHC:35935 RP No. 30 of 2022
petitioners are advised to withdraw the above review petition and to take appropriate steps to avail the relief in accordance with law.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that the above review petition may be dismissed as withdrawn to enable the petitioners to pursue appropriate remedy in law in the interest of justice.”
Sd/JUDGE
kcm List No.: 1 Sl No.: 33
1 provisions across 1 enactments
SMT. GOWRAMMA D/O LATE NANJAREDDY W/O G NARAYANAREDDY
SMT. SAVITHRAMMA D/O LATE NANJAREDDY W/O NARAYANAREDDY
SMT. VENKATALAKSHMAMMA D/O LATE NANJAREDDY W/O CHIKKAMUNI REDDY
SMT. PUSHPA W/O KRISHNAREDDY
SMT. SARASWATHAMMA W/O A P RAMACHADNRA REDDY
SRI C N SATHISH S/O NANJA REDDY
V SRISHANANDA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
