Ann Varghese Vs K. v. Prasad

MARY VARGHESE D/O LATE MAJ M VARGHESE AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS NO.321, FAUJI FARM, DECATHLON, MULLURU CARMELARAM, SARJAPUR ROAD BANGALORE SOUTH BANGALORE - 560035.

¶14

THOMAS VARGHESE S/O LATE MAJ M VARGHESE AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS NO.321, FAUJI FARM, DECATHLON, MULLURU CARMELARAM, SARJAPUR ROAD BANGALORE SOUTH, BANGALORE - 560035.

¶15

…PETITIONERS (BY SRI. D R RAVISHANKAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. RAKESH B BHATT, ADVOCATE)

¶16

2 -

¶17

NC: 2025:KHC:46713 RP No. 320 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

AND:

¶20

K. V. PRASAD S/O LATE VENKATESULU AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS

¶21

K SHASHIKALA PRASAD W/O K V PRASAD AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

¶22

K SHALINI PRASAD D/O K V PRASAD AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS

¶23

K P PRITHVI D/O K V PRASAD AGED ABOUT 26 YEARS

¶24

DEFENDANT No. 1 TO 4 ARE RESIDING AT NO.128, I BLOCK, RAILWAY PARALLEL ROAD, KUMARA PARK WEST, BANGALORE - 560020.

¶25

M R PRATHPASIMHA S/O M V RAMARAO AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS MADAGONDANAHALLI MADHURE HOBLI, DODDABALLAPURA TALUK, BENGALORE RURAL-561 204.

¶26

DUGGI REDDY KRISHNA PRASAD REDDY S/O DUGGI REDDY VENKATA REDDY AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS RESIDING AT 1-78, CHABOLU, MARRIPADU MANDALAM, CHABOLU NELLORE ANDHRA PRADESH - 524230.

¶27

3 -

¶28

NC: 2025:KHC:46713 RP No. 320 of 2025

¶29

HC-KAR

¶30

MUTYALA NARAYANA REDDY S/O MUTYALA VENKATA REDDY, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT 2-4, AYYALURIVARIPALLI, MEDANULU VENGANA PALLE, PRAKASAM, ANDHRA PRADESH - 523112.

¶31

BIJJAMULA CHANDRA SEKHAR REDDY S/O RAMANA REDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT, NALLAMADUGULA, PRAKASHAM, ANDHRA PRADESH-523112.

¶32

BIJJAMULA VEKATESWARLU S/O RMAMANAIAH, AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS, RESIDING AT, NALLAMADUGULA, PRAKASHAM, ANDHRA PRADESH-523112.

¶33

SHEKAR NARAYAN REDDY S/O LATE H. NARAYAN REDDY AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.111/114, HNR LAYOUT, KAIKONDARAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST, SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE-560035.

¶34

C. MAMATHA SHEKAR W/O N. SHEKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.111/114, H N R LAYOUT, KAIKONDARAHALLI, CARMELARAM POST, SARJAPURA ROAD, BANGALORE-560035.

¶35

VIJAY KUMAR GOEL S/O LATE RAGHBIR SINGH GOEL, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.13/35, SHANTINAGAR, MALKAGANJ, NORTH DELHI, DELHI-110007.

¶36

4 -

¶37

NC: 2025:KHC:46713 RP No. 320 of 2025

¶38

HC-KAR

¶39

BUSIREDDY BHASKAR REDDY AGED ABOUT 51 YEAR, S/O BUSIREDDY NARAPA REDDY, RESIDING AT NO.38/1, 8TH CROSS, NAGA REDDY LAYOUT, VTC, BELLANDUR, BANGALORE-560103.

¶40

P. AMJAD KHAN S/O P. NAZEER KHAN, AGED BOUT 31 YEARS, RESIDING AT. NO.3, 2ND CROSS, 24TH MAIN, HAMILTON BAILEY HOSPITAL, BANGALORE-560102.

¶41

NISSAR MUNUKUNDAN CHALIL S/O BAVA CHANKANDI, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶42

ZEMEERA NIZAR W/O NIZAR, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,

¶43

MOHAMMED SHEMNADH NISSAR, S/O NIZAR M C, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS,

¶44

SHAHZOOR NISAR

¶45

S/O NIZAR MOONUKUNDAN CHALIL, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

¶46

SHAHZAD NIZAR,

¶47

S/O NIZAR MOONUKUNDAN CHALIL, AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,

¶48

RESPONDENT No. 15 TO 19 ARE RESIDING AT SURUMA, BEACH ROAD MELADI, PAYYOLI, KOZHIKODE KERALA-673522.

¶49

5 -

¶50

NC: 2025:KHC:46713 RP No. 320 of 2025

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

JALALUDDIN MUSLIYARAKATH S/O MOHAMED MUSLIYARAKATH, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, RESIDING AT, PANANGANGARA, RAMAPURAM, PUZHAKKTTIRI, MALAPPURAM, KERALA-679321.

¶53

GAYATRI MADDI W/O VIDYARANYA MADDI AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶54

VIDYARANYA MADDI S/O VENKAT SUBRAHMANYAM MADDI AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS,

¶55

RESPONDENT No. 21 TO 22 ARE RESIDING AT NO 49A, SJR EASTWOOD, HARALUR ROAD, BENGALORE-560120.

¶56

SANJEEV KUMAR SUNDESH MEHARA AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, S/O SUDESH KISHEN MEHRA RESIDING AT H1201 PURVA SKYWOOD, SILVER COUNTY ROAD NEAR HARALUR VILLAGE, BANGALORE-560068.

¶57

BHARATH KUMAR PATEL AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, S/O BALAJI BHAI

¶58

RAJESH PATEL AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO PETITIONERS

¶59

ASHOK PATEL AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O BALAJI BHAI

¶60

RESPONDENTS No. 24 TO 26 ARE

¶61

6 -

¶62

NC: 2025:KHC:46713 RP No. 320 of 2025

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

RESIDING AT NO.9 1ST AVENUE 4TH MAIN, HARALUR ROAD, KASAVANAHALLI BANGALORE-560102.

¶65

ARUL N AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, S/O NATARAJAN RESIDING AT GEE GEE VILLA NO.4/7 1ST FLOOR, 2ND STREET, KASTHURI ESTATE POES GANDEN GOPALAPURAM CHENNAI TAMILNADU-600086.

¶66

…RESPONDENTS

¶67

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION.114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 19.06.2025 PASSED IN MFA NO.4185/2025 C/W MFA NO.4187/2025 BY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL (ANNEXURE A).

¶68

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

¶69

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

¶70

ORAL ORDER

¶71

The present review petition is filed seeking to review

¶72

the order dated 19.06.2025 passed in MFA No.4185/2025 c/w MFA No.4187/2025.

¶73

Heard learned Senior Counsel Sri D R Ravishankar, appearing along with Sri Rakesh B Bhatt, for the petitioners.

¶74

7 -

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:46713 RP No. 320 of 2025

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

The primary contention put forth on behalf of the petitioners is that notwithstanding the finding recorded in the order dated 19.06.2025 that there was suppression of certain facts, the petitioners/appellants were entitled to the ad-interim relief that was sought for in the said appeals. It is also contended that the aspect regarding the alleged suppression was adequately explained. In this regard, various grounds as averred in the review petition are sought to be put forth.

¶78

This Court, vide order dated 19.06.2025 dismissed the appeals filed by the petitioners, which was filed seeking to assail the orders dated 02.06.2025 passed by II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, Bengaluru, on I.A.No.1 and 2 filed under order XXXIX rule 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure in OS No.1425/2024. Vide the said order dated 02.06.2025, the trial Court had refused to grant an order of injunction as sought for in I.A.Nos.1 and 2. The said refusal was called in question in the appeals.

¶79

8 -

¶80

NC: 2025:KHC:46713 RP No. 320 of 2025

¶81

HC-KAR

¶82

This Court while considering the said appeals, having regard to fact that a discretionary order was not granted by the trial Court, refused to interfere with the exercise of such discretion. Various factual aspects of the matter have also been considered.

¶83

Adjudication of the contention urged by the review petitioners in the present review petition would tantamount to re-appreciating the merits of the matter, which is impermissible, having regard to the scope of consideration stipulated under Section 144 r/w order XLVII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure.

¶84

It is further pertinent to note that at para 35 of the order dated 19.06.2025, this Court has specifically ordered that the further adjudication in the suit shall be uninfluenced by the observations made by this Court in the order dated 19.06.2025 and that all contentions of both parties are kept open.

¶85