Review of a writ judgment whose last paragraph said the petitioners' fate stood sealed qua the compromise decree. The court accepted the review petitioners' submission that the observation did not seal their fate regarding property other than the 4 acres in O.S.No.113/2001, and disposed of the review petition without costs.
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 12TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2024 BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT REVIEW PETITION NO. 670 OF 2022
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
(BY SRI. V B SIDDARAMAIAH.,ADVOCATE)
…PETITIONERS
AND:
BOTH ARE R/A MUGADALABETTA VILLAGE, NIDAGAL HOBLI-CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, PAVAGADA TALUK-572 202. TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
DEAD-R5 IS TREATED AS LR AS PER THE ORDER DATED 02.03.2023.
ALL ARE R/AT MUGADALABETTA VILLAGE, NIDAGAL HOBLI-CHIKKANAYAKANAHALLI, PAVAGADA TALUK-572 202. TUMAKURU DISTRICT.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. NARENDRA PRAKASH R.,ADVOCATE FOR SRI. HANUMANTHARAYA D.,ADVOCATE FOR R1 & R2; SRI. H D SOMESHA., ADVOCATE FOR R3(A & B) & R5; V.C.O DATED 2/3/23, R4 IS DEAD & R5 IS TREATED AS LR OF R4)
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING THAT THIS HONBLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 12/02/2021 PASSED IN W.P.NO.2968/2021, THEREBY RESTORE THE WP NO.2968/2021, TO HEAR ON MERITS, BY ALLOWING THIS REVIEW PETITION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS REVIEW PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT
ORAL ORDER
This court vide final judgment dated 12.02.2021 has
disposed off the writ petition wherein the last paragraph in internal page 3 reads as under:
“This judgment shall not come in the way of others prosecuting or defending other proceedings elsewhere; however, fate of the petitioners stands sealed qua the compromise decree.”
vehemently argues that the observation that fate of the petitioners stands sealed qua the compromise decree should not be misconstrued as the sealing of their fate qua the property other than 4 acres comprised in declaration suit in O.S.No.113/2001. I find force in this submission nothing contra having been shown by the
NC: 2024:KHC:32131 RP No. 670 of 2022
other side. Therefore, the said paragraph should be construed as not ceiling the fate of writ petitioners qua the property other than 4 acres that was subject matter of the said suit.
In the above circumstances and observations, Review Petition is disposed off, costs having been made easy.
Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE
CBC
List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the observation in the writ judgment that the petitioners' fate stood sealed qua the compromise decree extends to property other than the 4 acres in O.S.No.113/2001.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Anusuyamma
Smt. Lakshmidevamma @ Lakshmamma
Sri. Mudalagiriyappa
Sri. Ramachandrappa
Sri. Hanumantharayappa (LR of deceased R3 Narasihmappa)
Sri. N. Narasimhamurthy (LR of deceased R3 Narasihmappa)
Krishna S Dixit
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
