This review petition challenging an appellate order on temporary injunction relief is dismissed for lacking error apparent on the face of the record, as the substantive issues require trial.
Review Petition No. 70 of 2024 is 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.
NC: 2024:KHC:20097 RP No. 70 of 2024
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF JUNE, 2024
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE H.P.SANDESH
REVIEW PETITION NO. 70 OF 2024
IN MFA NO.6172/2021 (CPC)
BETWEEN:
Digitally signed by DEVIKA M Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI RAJENDRA KODGI, PETITIONER NO.1 [PARTY-IN-PERSON])
AND:
…RESPONDENTS
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W. ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CPC, 1908 AS AMENDED, PRAYING THIS COURT TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE CASE MFA NO.6172/2021(CPC), GRANT A REVIEW OF THE ORDER DATED 20TH JANUARY 2024 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN MFA NO.6172/2021(CPC) AND ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVIEW PETITIONERS AND GRANT THE REVIEW PETITIONERS SUCH OTHER AND FURTHER RELIEF DEEMS FIT UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER
Heard the review petitioner No.1 appearing in person.
passed in M.F.A.No.6172/2021 and grounds urged in the review petition to review the order that order suffers apparent on the face of the record in affirming the order of temporary injunction passed by the Trial Court in as much as this Court did not take into consideration of aforesaid interim order passed by the this Court dated 23.12.2021. In that view of the matter it is respectfully submitted that the order of this Court dated 20.01.2024 suffers error apparent on the face of the record. Therefore, the said order deserves to be reviewed. The other ground urged in the review petition is that in the absence of the very existence of joint family as sought to be pleaded by the plaintiff, there is absolutely no scope for an interference that the plaint schedule properties were inherited through the ancestors, when the very documents of title produced
NC: 2024:KHC:20097 RP No. 70 of 2024
in the plaint relating to the suit schedule properties do not in any way suggest so. The existence of joint family and its nucleus must be pleaded in clear terms and the plaint is very much silent on that aspect of the matter and admittedly not even genealogical tree had been appended to the plaint. The ground raised in paragraph No.5 of the review petition is with regard to the joint acquisition of the properties.
NC: 2024:KHC:20097 RP No. 70 of 2024
also having considered the material available on record, taken note of judgment which have been quoted by the counsel, particularly the landmark judgment of Gowrishankara Swamigalu V/s Sri.Siddhaganga Mutt case reported in ILR 1989 KAR 1701 and within the ambit of scope of appellate Court also, considered the matter on record and also comes to the conclusion that whether the properties have been purchased and whether the properties are amenable partition and the same is a matte of trial. There is no dispute with regard to the purchasing of item Nos.1, 2, 4 and 6 jointly in between and whether the properties are joint family properties or self acquired properties or properties are individual properties and all the issues have to be adjudged before the Trial Court. Hence, comes to the conclusion that Trial Court has not committed any error in considering the prima facie case granting the relief. When such being the order passed by this Court and the grounds urged in the review petition also is with regard to granting of interim order before this Court at the earliest point of time and
also grounds with regard to the absence of very existence of joint family and purchase is made out of joint family nucleus requires trial. All these grounds are urged in the review petition. The review petition can be entertained only if any error apparent on record and then only review jurisdiction has to be exercised and no such grounds are urged before this Court and the grounds which have been urged before this Court is nothing but assailing the order of this Court on merits when the order has been passed. Hence, remedy is elsewhere, not before this Court by exercising the review jurisdiction. Hence, I do not find any grounds to review the order.
the following:
ORDER
The Review Petition is dismissed.
RHS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 43
Sd/JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the review petition attracts the remedy under Section 114 read with Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC.
Whether the challenges to the order on merits justify exercising the Court's review jurisdiction.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Gowrishankara Swamigalu V/s Sri.Siddhaganga MuttReferred¶34
ILR 1989 KAR 1701 · Who else cites this
1 provisions across 1 enactments
A. Rajendra Kodgi
Dr. Reshma K.
A. Sudir Kodgi
A. NANDAGOPAL KODGI
Gopal Krishna Bhat
H.P. Sandesh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
