This review petition challenging an impugned writ dismissal order noted a significant delay in filing. The court dismissed the application for condoning the delay and subsequently dismissed the review petition.
I.A. No.1 of 2023 seeking condonation of delay and the main review petition were both dismissed.
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.
RP No. 93 of 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 16TH DAY OF MARCH, 2023
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE K.SOMASHEKAR
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE UMESH M ADIGA
REVIEW PETITION NO.93 OF 2023
BETWEEN:
SRI VICTOR VEIGAS
Digitally signed by D K BHASKAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S/O LATE JEROME VEIGAS, AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS, RESIDING AT `VYAVAHAR PARK APARTMENT, KINNIMULKY MAIN ROAD, UDUPI - 576 101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI AJAY PRABHU, ADVOCATE, FOR SRI SACHIN B. S.)
AND:
S/O VAIKUNTA MALLYA, MAJOR,
RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD, PUTTUR TOWN, PUTTUR TALUK - 574 201.
…RESPONDENTS
RP No. 93 of 2023
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII, RULE 1 OF THE CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW/RECALL THE ORDER DATED 12.01.2015 IN WRIT PETITION NO.4923 OF 2008.
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, K. SOMASHEKAR, J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R
Sri Ajay Prabhu, learned counsel appears on behalf of
Sri Sachin B.S., learned counsel for the petitioner.
RP No. 93 of 2023
the District Forum in Execution No.341 of 2005 on the ground that the order passed by the District Forum has not been complied with. After consideration of the writ petition, the Court came to the conclusion that without exhausting the appellate remedy, the writ cannot be maintainable, and accordingly, the writ petition was disposed of on 12-1-2015.
2023 for condoning the delay in filing the review petition. Inherent jurisdiction of the Court to make orders ex debito justitiae is undoubtedly affirmed by Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, but that jurisdiction cannot be exercised so as to nullify the provisions of the Code. Where the Code deals expressly with a particular matter, the provision should normally be regarded as exhaustive. The same is addressed in detail by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v C. Parameshwara reported in
AIR 2005 SC 242 .
RP No. 93 of 2023
filed a review petition under Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. A perusal of Order XLVII, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, indicates that review of a judgment or an order could be sought from, the discovery of new and important matter or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence was not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made, or on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record of for any other sufficient reason, desires to obtain a review of the decree passed or order made against him, may apply for a review of judgment to the Court which passed the decree or made the order. The aforesaid issue was also addressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court extensively in the case of Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik and Others reported in AIR 2006 SC 1634 . Keeping in view the ratio which is stated supra and so also the reasons assigned in the affidavit supporting the
RP No. 93 of 2023
application seeking to condone the delay of 2938 in filing the review petition do not have any substances. Moreover, there is no justifiable reason and there is no sound reason to entertain I.A. No.1 of 2023. Accordingly, I.A. No.1 of 2023 stands dismissed.
Consequent upon dismissal of I.A. No.1 of 2023, there is no consequence to entertain the review petition. Accordingly, the review petition also stands dismissed .
Sd/JUDGE
Sd/JUDGE
KVK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16 CT:PH
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the delay of 2938 days in filing a review petition can be condoned under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
Whether the applicant is entitled to a review of the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 4923 of 2008.
Whether the inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 CPC can be exercised to nullify the limitations provision.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v C. ParameshwaraReferred¶36
National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v C. Parameshwara, AIR 2005 SC 242 · Who else cites this
Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik and OthersReferred¶39
Haridas Das v. Smt. Usha Rani Banik and Others, AIR 2006 SC 1634 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Sri Victor Veigas
Smt. Rekha Prabhu
Sri N. Padmanabha Mallya
K. Somashekar
Umesh M Adiga
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
