Allowed¶8

Gravity One Living Space Pvt. Ltd., v. Naagamma

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2025RP/319/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC — error apparent on face of record — recall and restoration of C.M.P. No. 418 of 2021 — Continued Joint Development Agreement dated 07.11.2014 — twelve-month completion period to commence only after Mysore Urban Development Authority (MUDA) clearances — revised Master Plan of Mysuru and Nanjangud released on 12.01.2016 — notice Annexure 'L' dated 17.8.2021 — all contentions kept open — Gravity One Living Space Pvt. Ltd. v. Naagamma.

What did the court decide?

Recall of the order dated 09.02.2023 in CMP No.418/2021; restoration of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition to its original file; re-listing of the petition before the bench having roster; all contentions of the parties kept open. ¶8

Gravity One Living Space Pvt. Ltd., Vs Naagamma — Company and Corporate | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶8

Issue for consideration

Whether the review petitioner made out a case of error apparent on the face of the record in the order dated 09.02.2023 in C.M.P. No.418 of 2021, in view of the clause in the Continued Joint Development Agreement stipulating that the twelve-month completion period commences only after necessary clearances are obtained from the competent authority, viz., the Mysore Urban Development Authority.

¶7

Court's answer

The review petitioner has made out a case of error apparent on the face of the record: the Continued Joint Development Agreement clearly states that the period of twelve months for completion of the contract would commence after necessary clearances are obtained from the competent authority, viz., the Mysore Urban Development Authority; the conditions stipulated in the Agreement were not noticed when the order in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition was passed, and the matter requires reconsideration.

¶7

Ratio / Principle

The review petition is allowed; the order dated 09.02.2023 in CMP No.418/2021 is recalled and the Civil Miscellaneous Petition stands restored to its original file, to be re-listed before the bench having roster, with all contentions of the parties kept open.

¶8

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka (R Devdas, J.), by oral order dated 25.10.2025, allowed Review Petition No. 319 of 2023 filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure and recalled the Court's judgment dated 09.02.2023 in C.M.P. No. 418 of 2021, restoring the Civil Miscellaneous Petition to its original file. Holding that an error apparent on the face of the record had been made out, the Court observed that while disposing of the C.M.P. it had proceeded on the basis of the stipulated twelve-month period counted from the date of the Continued Joint Development Agreement dated 07.11.2014, without noticing the Agreement's condition that the twelve-month period for completion of the contract commences only after necessary clearances are obtained from the competent authority, viz., the Mysore Urban Development Authority. The matter was directed to be re-listed before the bench having roster, with all contentions of the parties kept open.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:42333 RP No. 319 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS REVIEW PETITION NO.319 OF 2023

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

GRAVITY ONE LIVING SPACE PVT. LTD. A COMPANY INCORPORATED AND REGISTERED UNDER COMPANIES ACT 2013 WITH ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO.1062, VISHNUVARDHANA ROAD OPP. ZILLA PANCHAYATH CHAMARAJAPURAM MYSURU-570 005 REPRESENTED BY ITS DIRECTOR DHANANJAY BASAVARAJU

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI N. DEVADAS, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI RUPESH KUMAR S., ADVOCATE)

¶12

Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA

¶13

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

NAAGAMMA AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS W/O. LATE CHAMARAJU RESIDING AT MARATIKYATHANAHALLI JAYAPURA HOBLI MYSURU TALUK-570 026

¶16

…RESPONDENT

¶17

(BY SRI ROOPESHA B., ADVOCATE)

¶18

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS IN C.M.P. NO.418 OF 2021 AND REVIEW THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.02.2023 IN C.M.P. NO.418 OF 2021 BY REFERRING THE MATTER FOR ADJUDICATION TO THE LEARNED ARBITRATOR.

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:42333 RP No. 319 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

Learned Senior Counsel Sri N.Devadas appearing for

¶26

the review petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the Continued Joint Development Agreement dated 07.11.2014, which was taken note of by this Court while disposing of the Civil Miscellaneous Petition.

¶27

However, learned Senior Counsel submits while pointing out to one of the clauses of the Continued Joint Development Agreement that although a period of 12 months are stipulated for the contract, nevertheless, it precedes with the requirement that the period of 12 months shall commence from the date when which necessary clearances are obtained from the Mysore Urban Development Authority, having regard to the restrictions on Zonal Regulations placed in the then revised Master Plan. The learned Senior Counsel would therefore submit

¶28

¶29

NC: 2025:KHC:42333 RP No. 319 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

that although it is true that 12 months period have been stipulated for completion of the contract, nevertheless, the period commences from the date when which the clearances of the Mysore Urban Development Authority is secured by the parties. Learned Senior Counsel therefore submits that this important condition having not been noticed by this Court, the order has been passed rejecting the Civil Miscellaneous petition filed at the hands of the petitioner herein.

¶32

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent would submit that even in terms of the notice issued by the petitioner herein as found at Annexure ‘L’ dated 17.8.2021 in paragraph No.6, the petitioner has admitted that the revised Master Plan of Mysuru and Nanjangud was released on 12.01.2016. Learned counsel would therefore submit that even if it is taken that the revised Master Plan was released on 12.01.2016, no steps were taken by the petitioner to get the necessary clearances at the hands of the Mysore Urban Development Authority.

¶33

¶34

NC: 2025:KHC:42333 RP No. 319 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

To this, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioner submits that the entire content of the notice have to be read by this Court. It is pointed out that immediately after the revised Master Plan was released on 12.01.2016, several attempts were made at the hands of the petitioner calling upon the respondent herein to cooperate in the matter of getting the clearances at the hands of the Mysore Urban Development Authority. It is also stated in the notice that the respondent has not cooperated in getting the clearances at the hands of the Mysore Urban Development Authority.

¶37

In that view of the matter, learned Senior Counsel submits that the order passed in the Civil Miscellaneous Petition has to be recalled to enable the parties to address their arguments afresh.

¶38

Heard the learned Senior Counsel Sri N. Devadas for the review petitioner, learned Counsel Sri Roopesha B., for the respondent and perused the petition papers.

¶39

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:42333 RP No. 319 of 2023

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Having heard the learned Counsels, this Court is of the considered opinion that the review petitioner has made out a case on the ground that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. The clause in the Continued Joint Development Agreement clearly states that the period of twelve months for completion of the contract would commence after necessary clearances are obtained at the hands of the competent authority, viz., the Mysore Urban Development Authority. The ground on which the order was passed by this Court rejecting the Civil Miscellaneous Petition was that even according to the Continued Joint Development Agreement, a period of 12 months was stipulated and the date of the Continued Joint Development Agreement was taken into consideration. However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the review petitioner, what was not noticed by this Court was the conditions stipulated in the Continued Joint Development Agreement. The matter therefore requires reconsideration.

¶42

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:42333 RP No. 319 of 2023

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45