Review petition against dismissal of a second appeal, with application to condone a delay of 1845 days in filing. The court found no error apparent on the record and no reasonable explanation for the delay, rejecting both the condonation application and the review petition.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI REVIEW PETITION NO.66 OF 2021
BETWEEN:
ALL ARE R/AT CHOTTANAHALLI VILLAGE, KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT - 571 419.
…PETITIONERS
[BY SRI NANJUNDA SWAMY N., ADVOCATE (PH)]
Digitally signed by ANUSHA V Location: High Court Of Karnataka
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
[BY SRI SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R1 (AB); R-2 TO R6 ARE SERVED & UNREPRESENTED]
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HONBLE COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 24/02/2015, PASSED IN RSA NO. 1753/2011 AND ALLOW THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION AND PASS NECESSARY ORDERS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR HEARING ON I.A., THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAVI V HOSMANI
ORAL ORDER
This review petition is filed being aggrieved by judgment
dated 24.02.2015 passed by this Court in RSA.no.1753/2011.
NC: 2024:KHC:52032 RP No. 66 of 2021
application, it is stated that appellants’ counsel had informed them that appeal would not come for hearing for 4 to 5 years due to shortage of judges and therefore, had not contacted him during that period. However, appeal came to be dismissed by judgment dated 24.02.2015 of which they were not aware of. It is further stated that in O.S.no.478/2019 filed by one Smt.Bhagyamma, wherein petitioners had appeared, there was disclosure of dismissal of RSA.no.1753/2011. Immediately upon verification, R.P.no.66/2021 is filed, in this process there has accrued delay.
NC: 2024:KHC:52032 RP No. 66 of 2021
counsel. No error apparent on face of record is pointed out besides explanation for delay does not appear to be reasonable as affidavit of counsel, who had appeared for petitioners in appeal has not been filed to indicate that there was no communication of impugned judgment. Mere self-serving assertion that petitioners were not aware would not suffice especially when petitioners herein had already come on record as legal representatives and were well aware of pendency of their appeal. Hence, there are no justified or bonafide grounds for condonation of delay. I.A.no.1/2021 is rejected .
Consequently, review petition is also rejected .
Sd/(RAVI V HOSMANI) JUDGE
GRD
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Indiramma T.
Sri C.M. Ashok
Sri C.M. Nandish
Sri C.M. Naveen
Sri K. Ramu
Smt. Shanthamma
Ravi V Hosmani
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
