Allowed¶51

Anand S/O Narayan Somanche v. Padmaraj S/O Tavanappa Patil

Karnataka HC8 Dec 2025RP/100048/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: review petition; Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC; recall of appellate judgment; RFA No.100095/2019; O.S.No.196/2012 Belagavi; preliminary decree; counsel retirement memo accepted without Court notice; natural justice / opportunity of hearing; status quo pending appeal; 21 guntas; registered sale deed dated 02.04.2012; agreement of sale dated 25.10.2024; defendants No.5 and 6 as purchasers; self-acquired versus ancestral property plea; partition suit; High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad; R. Devdas and B. Muralidhara Pai, JJ.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; judgment and order dated 08.11.2024 passed in RFA No.100095/2019 recalled; RFA No.100095/2019 restored to its original file; parties directed to maintain status quo over the properties in question, particularly the 21 guntas, till disposal of the appeal. ¶51

Anand S/O Narayan Somanche Vs Padmaraj S/O Tavanappa Patil — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶51

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment and order dated 08.11.2024 in RFA No.100095/2019 ought to be reviewed and recalled on the ground that the memo of retirement filed by the learned counsel on record for plaintiffs No.3 and 4 was accepted by the Court without issuing notice to respondents No.2 and 3, who were contesting the matter. +1 more

¶47

Court's answer

The review petitioners made out a valid ground: the memo of retirement filed by the learned counsel on record was accepted without issuing Court notice to respondents No.2 and 3, who were contesting the matter.

¶47

Ratio / Principle

The Court need not go into the merits of the matter, having regard to the narrow compass in which the review petition lies.

¶47

Key takeaways

The review petition is allowed and the judgment dated 08.11.2024 is recalled, to enable the parties to contest the matter and have the adjudication on merits of the matter.ratio¶51
The parties are directed to maintain status quo in respect of the properties in question, more particularly the 21 guntas of land sold to respondents/defendants No.5 and 6 through defendant No.1 in 2012, till the disposal of the appeal.ratio¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC by the plaintiffs along with defendants No.2 to 4 allowed; judgment dated 08.11.2024 in RFA No.100095/2019 (PAR/POS) recalled and the appeal restored to file. Ground: during pendency of the appeal the counsel on record for plaintiffs No.3 and 4 (respondents No.2 and 3) filed a retirement memo on 10.10.2023 upon elevation as a Judge of this Court, and the Court accepted the memo without issuing Court notice to the contesting respondents No.2 and 3, who were unaware of the retirement. The Court declined to enter the merits, confined to the narrow compass of the review, and directed the parties to maintain status quo over the properties, particularly 21 guntas covered by a registered sale deed dated 02.04.2012 in favour of defendants No.5 and 6, till disposal of the appeal; it disapproved the review petitioners' execution of a registered agreement of sale dated 25.10.2024 over 21 guntas during pendency when only a preliminary decree (decree dated 03.01.2019 in O.S.No.196/2012, IV Addl. Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Belagavi) had been passed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17477-DB RP No. 100048 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD

¶5

DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶8

REVIEW PETITION NO.100048 OF 2025

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SMT. SHANTABAI W/O. NARAYAN SOMANACHE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S.

¶11

ANAND S/O. NARAYAN SOMANACHE, AGE: 69 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.155, JERI GALLI, ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590007. TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶12

FAKIRA S/O. NARAYAN SOMANACHE, AGE: 65 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO. 212, JERI GALLI, ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590007. TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶13

Digitally signed by V N BADIGER Location: High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.

¶14

MONAPPA S/O. NARAYAN SOMANCHE AGED 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO. 161, JERI GALLI, ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590007. TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶15

REVANI S/O. NARAYAN SOMANACHE, AGE: 60 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO. 161, JERI GALLI, ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590007. TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶16

PRABHAKAR S/O. NARAYAN SOMANACHE, AGE: 48 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, R/O. H.NO.161, JERI GALLI, ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590007. TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶17

NARAYAN S/O. HANAMANT SOMANACHE, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS.

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17477-DB RP No. 100048 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SMT. LAXMI W/O. NINGANI HANAMANTACHE, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. LAXMI GALLI, HALAGA, BELAGAVI-590002, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶22

SMT. INDU W/O. JOTIBA MANGALE, AGE: 51 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. NEAR 1^ST GATE, TILAKWADI, BELAGAVI-590003, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶23

SMT. TULASA W/O. VASANT HUDDAR, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: HOUSEHOLD WORK, R/O. GAURI BUILDING, SAI DHABA, JALAGAON FATHA, SATARA-415001, DIST. SATARA, STATE: MAHARASHTRA.

¶24

…PETITIONERS

¶25

(BY SRI SHIVAPRASAD SATYENDRA PATIL, ADV. FOR SRI PRUTHVI K. S., ADVOCATE)

¶26

AND:

¶27

SHRI PADMARAJ S/O. TAVANAPPA PATIL, AGE: 41 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.380, TANAJI GALLI, ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590007, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶28

SHRI RAVI S/O. TAVANAPPA PATIL, AGE: 53 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS, R/O. H.NO.380, TANAJI GALLI, ANGOL, BELAGAVI-590007, TQ. AND DIST. BELAGAVI.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI. DINESH M. KULKARNI, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2)

¶31

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE PRESENT REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW AND RECALL THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 08.11.2024 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN RFA NO.100095/2019 AND CONFIRM THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 03.01.2019 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE IV ADDITIONAL SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, BELAGAVI IN O.S.NO.196/2012, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶32

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17477-DB RP No. 100048 of 2025

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B. MURALIDHARA PAI

¶37

ORAL ORDER

¶38

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS)

¶39

This review petition is filed under Order-XLVII Rule 1

¶40

of the CPC at the hands of the plaintiffs along with defendants No.2 to 4 to recall the Judgment dated 08.11.2024 passed in RFA No.100095/2019 (PAR/POS).

¶41

For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to in terms of the ranking before the trial Court.

¶42

Learned counsel for plaintiffs submits that during pendency of the appeal, it appears that the learned counsel on record for plaintiffs No.3 and 4 (respondents No.2 and 3) filed a memo for retirement on 10.10.2023 on the ground that the learned counsel on record was elevated as a Judge of this Court, therefore a notice was sent to respondents No.2 and 3 to make alternative arrangements. Learned counsel submits that the order sheet would reveal that this Court simply accepted the retirement memo and no Court notice was issued to respondents

¶43

4 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17477-DB RP No. 100048 of 2025

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

No.2 and 3. Therefore, they were not aware of the fact that the learned counsel retired from the matter.

¶46

Learned counsel for appellants in RFA No.100095/2019 submits that the appeal was filed at the hands of defendants No.5 and 6, who were purchasers of portion of land out of 1 acre 31 gunta. They were aggrieved of the fact that the trial Court did not consider the issue raised by defendant No.1 that the entire extent of land was self acquired property of his father and therefore he was free to deal with the land in question as they were not ancestral properties of his father.

¶47

Having heard the learned counsel for review petitioners and the learned counsel for respondent/defendants No.5 and 6, we are of the considered opinion that the review petitioners have made out a valid ground while stating that the memo of retirement filed by the learned counsel on record was accepted without issuing Court notice to respondents No.2 and 3, who were contesting the matter. This Court need not go into the merits of the matter, having regard to the narrow compass in which the preset review petition lies. However, we should notice the fact that the appellants in RFA No.100095/2019, who are

¶48

5 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17477-DB RP No. 100048 of 2025

¶49

HC-KAR

¶50

respondents herein have filed statement of objections and along with the said statement of objections they have furnished a copy of registered Agreement of Sale dated 25.10.2024 said to have been executed by the plaintiffs along with defendants No.2 to 4 agreeing to sell land to the extent of 21 guntas, which was standing in the name of respondents herein by virtue of the registered Sale Deed dated 02.04.2012. We do not approve of the conduct of the review petitioners in trying to deal with the property which has been disposed of in the year 2012 in favour of defendants No.5 and 6/respondents herein during pendency of the appeal and having regard to the fact that only preliminary decree has been passed by the trial court.

¶51

6 In that view of the matter, we proceed to allow the review petition and recall the Judgment dated 08.11.2024, to enable the parties to contest the matter and have the adjudication on merits of the matter.

¶52

We further direct the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the properties in question, more particularly 21 guntas of land which has been sold to respondents herein/defendants

¶53

¶54

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17477-DB RP No. 100048 of 2025

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

No.5 and 6 at the hand of defendant No.1 in the year 2012, till

¶57

the disposal of the appeal.

¶58