Review petition against a second-appeal judgment dismissed for 359-day delay; served petitioners who remained unrepresented could not seek review on that ground alone, as review scope is limited to error apparent on record.
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: 2024:KHC:46514 RP No. 144 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REVIEW PETITION NO. 144 OF 2024 IN
R.S.A.NO.2122 OF 2017
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. VIGNESHWARA S. SHASTRY, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI PUNITH C., & SRI NARENDRA BABU H.L., ADVOCATES)
AND:
NC: 2024:KHC:46514 RP No. 144 of 2024
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS RESIDING AT DASAMUDDAIAHNAPALYA (D M PALYA), SIRA GATE, TUMAKURU-572 106.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. V.B.SIDDARAMAIAH & SRI MOUNESH S.B., ADVOCATE FOR R1; R2 AND R3 ARE SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)
THIS REVIEW PETITION UNDER SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT DATED 23.02.2023 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN RSA NO.2122/2017 AND THEREBY ORDER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL IN RSA NO.2122/2017, BY ALLOWING THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned Senior counsel for the review petitioners
and learned counsel for respondent No.1.
petition. The records also disclose that review petitioners have been served in R.S.A. and did not represent and this Court also
admitted the second appeal and framed substantial question of law and the review petitioners did not appear before this Court and this Court considered the matter on merits. Now, the review petitioners have come up before this Court that this review petition is to be considered and this Court has not appreciated Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. The Commissioner Report is also clear that respondents are not in possession of the suit schedule property to the entire extent. The scope of the review petition filed under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC is very limited. Admittedly, the review petitioners are served with notice and they did not choose to appear and contest before the Court.
NC: 2024:KHC:46514 RP No. 144 of 2024
any ground to entertain the review petition and no ground is made out to review and also to condone the delay of 359 days in filing the review petition, since notice is served and the review petitioners remained unrepresented before the Court and the contention that the review petitioners were not having knowledge about the proceedings cannot be considered even to condone the delay also, as they have been served with notice.
Sd/(H.P.SANDESH) JUDGE
ST List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a 359-day delayed review petition filed after the petitioners were served but unrepresented in the second appeal should be entertained and delay condoned.
3 provisions across 2 enactments
Smt. Alumelumangamma W/o Late Ganganna
Smt. Anjinamma Wife of Chandrappa
Sri R. Uday Kumar S/o Ramaiah
Sri T.G. Manjunath S/o Late Ganganna
Sri T.G. Venkatesh Son of Late Ganganna
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
