Dismissed

Sri Munegowda v. Sri. Sriramappa

Karnataka HC6 Oct 2023RP/316/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review Petition in Regular First Appeal regarding specific performance of contract dismissed. Court held absence of counsel and failure to advise properly are not grounds for review under CPC Order 47 Rules 1 and 2 without error apparent on record. Petition barred by lack of new evidence or sufficient reason.

What did the court decide?

The Review Petition was dismissed as devoid of grounds for admission of the matter.

Sri Munegowda Vs Sri. Sriramappa — Specific Performance | Karnataka HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2023:KHC:36225 RP No. 316 of 2023

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2023

¶4

BEFORE

¶5

THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE H.B.PRABHAKARA SASTRY

¶6

REVIEW PETITION NO. 316 OF 2023

¶7

¶8

R.F.A. NO.300 OF 2017 (SP)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI MUNEGOWDA S/O NARAYANAPPA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, R/AT PURADAGADDE,

¶11

KASABA HOBLI,

¶12

DIBBURA MAJARA,

¶13

CHICBALLAPURA TALUK 562102

¶14

…PETITIONER

¶15

(BY SRI. KALLESHAPPA K S., ADVOCATE)

¶16

AND:

¶17

Digitally signed by VEENA KUMARI B Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶18

SRI. SRIRAMAPPA S/O GUMMANNA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS,

¶19

SMT SAROJAMMA S/O SRIRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,

¶20

SRI KESHAVA REDDY S/O SRIRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶21

¶22

NC: 2023:KHC:36225 RP No. 316 of 2023

¶23

SRI KIRAN KUMAR S/O SRIRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS,

¶24

KUM CHAITRA D/O SRIRAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 31 YEARS,

¶25

ALL R/AT PURADAGADDE, KASABA HOBLI, DIBBURA MAJARA, CHICBALLAPURA TALUK 562102

¶26

…RESPONDENTS

¶27

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114(A) R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC PRAYING TO (I) CALL FOR RECORDS OF RFA NO.300/2017 ORDER PASSED BY THIS COURT ON 02.06.2023 (II) REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 02.06.2023 IN RFA NO.300/2017 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT BY CONSIDERING THE POINTS MADE OUT ABOVE PETITION IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY (III) TO GRANT SUCH OTHER RELIEFS AS DEEMED FIT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶28

THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THROUGH PHYSICAL HEARING/VIDEO CONFERENCE THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶29

¶30

NC: 2023:KHC:36225 RP No. 316 of 2023

¶31

ORDER

¶32

This matter is listed for admission. Heard the

¶33

submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner, who is physically present before the Court, on admission.

¶34

Perused the memorandum of petition along with its annexures. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that due to inadvertence, he had remained absent on 02.06.2023, on which day, the Regular First Appeal came to be disposed of, as such, the said order deserves to be reviewed.

¶35

The Regular First Appeal No.300/2017, from which the present the Review Petition has arisen, was filed by the present respondents who were the defendants in O.S.No.123/2010, pending before the Additional Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Chikkaballapura (hereinafter for brevity referred to as 'trial Court'). The present petitioner,

¶36

who was the respondent in RFA No.300/2017, was the plaintiff in the trial Court in said O.S.No.123/2010, which suit was filed for the relief of specific performance of the

¶37

¶38

NC: 2023:KHC:36225 RP No. 316 of 2023

¶39

contract. The trial Court by its impugned judgment and decree dated 18.11.2016, while denying the relief of specific performance in favour of the plaintiff, had held him entitled for refund of advance amount of a sum of `10,50,000/- from the defendants before it. Aggrieved by the same, the defendants in the trial Court had preferred RFA No.300/2017.

¶40

The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted

¶41

that he could not able to be present in the Court and address his arguments in RFA No.300/2017. It is observed in the judgment passed in RFA No.300/2017 that, in spite of granting several and sufficient opportunities, the learned counsel for the respondent therein (petitioner herein) has remained absent and has not addressed his arguments. It is thereafter, the Court proceeded to pass

¶42

the judgment on the merits. Thus, the contention that learned counsel could not able to be present in the Court cannot be a ground for reviewing the judgment, unless the

¶43

¶44

NC: 2023:KHC:36225 RP No. 316 of 2023

¶45

essentials as enunciated under Order XLVII Rules 1 and 2

¶46

of Code of Civil Procedure are made out.

¶47

The grounds raised in the Review Petition are that the suit of the plaintiff was within limitation and the petitioner's earlier advocate in the trial Court has not advised him properly. The grounds raised in the Review Petition or the submission made by the learned counsel that he could not be present in the Court to address his arguments would not in any manner be construed as any of the essentials required to be shown as per Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC. Admittedly, there is no discovery of new or important matter or evidence, which, after the exercise of due diligence, was not within the knowledge of the petitioner or could not be produced by him at the time when the judgment was passed.

¶48

Secondly, there is no mistake or error apparent on the face of the record.

¶49

Lastly, I do not find any sufficient reason which deserves considering the present petition for reviewing the

¶50

¶51

NC: 2023:KHC:36225 RP No. 316 of 2023

¶52

judgment and decree passed in RFA No.300/2017. Hence, I do not find any reason even to admit this petition and to

¶53

order notice upon the respondents.

¶54

Accordingly, the Review Petition stands dismissed

¶55

as devoid of grounds for admission of the matter.

¶56

Sd/JUDGE

¶57

BVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26

Sri Munegowda v. Sri. Sriramappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri Munegowda v. Sri. Sriramappa

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Ashwath Narayana Reddy @ a N Reddy Vs M/S Confident Project India Pvt. Ltd.

Sena Vihar Owners Welfare Association (R) Vs Sri. Bandarappa Bhakthadigala Sangha (R)

Sri Satish Shetty Vs K Umesh

Sri K Srinivas Murthy Vs Sri B Shanthakumar

Kum. Seerath Jehan, Vs M/S Homigo Realty Private Limited

M.G. Karunanidhi Vs M. Jayakumar