Allowed¶48

Yogesha v. N Suresha

Karnataka HC25 Oct 2025RP/393/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Keywords: review petition; error apparent on face of record; recall of writ judgment; disposal at Preliminary Hearing without notice; Lok Adalat compromise decree; Execution Case No.162/2019; Order XXVI Rule 10(b); Section 151 CPC; Section 114 CPC; Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; Article 226 Constitution; status quo suit schedule property; W.P.No.20075/2024; RP No.393 of 2024; Abalavadi village, Koppa hobli, Maddur taluk, Mandya district; High Court of Karnataka.

What did the court decide?

Review petition allowed; order dated 30.07.2024 in W.P.No.20075/2024 recalled; writ petition restored to its original file; Office directed to list the writ petition before the bench having roster; parties directed to maintain status quo as on this day regarding the suit schedule property. ¶48

Yogesha Vs N Suresha — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶48

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment dated 30.07.2024 in W.P.No.20075/2024, disposed of at the Preliminary Hearing stage without notice to the review petitioner, is liable to be reviewed and recalled on the ground of an error apparent on the face of the record, and the writ petition restored to enable the review petitioner to contest the matter.

¶23

Court's answer

The writ petition was disposed of on the date when the matter was listed for Preliminary Hearing, without notice to the respondents (i.e., the review petitioner), only on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner; the facts sought to be submitted by the review petitioner were not brought to the notice of the Court.

¶42

Ratio / Principle

The above is sufficient to hold that the review petitioner has made out a case of an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶46-47

Key takeaways

Parties are directed to maintain status quo as on the date of this order regarding the suit schedule property.ratio¶49-50

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Oral order of single judge (R Devdas J., 25-10-2025): Review Petition under Section 114 read with Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, 1908 read with Article 226 of the Constitution allowed. The judgment dated 30.07.2024 in W.P.No.20075/2024 had been passed on the very date the matter was listed for Preliminary Hearing, without even issuing notice to the respondent therein (the present review petitioner), solely on the submissions of the writ petitioner's counsel; the facts now urged — that the connected Execution Case No.162/2019 was founded on a Lok Adalat compromise decree under which the respondents were to pay Rs.2,30,000/- on or before 09.06.2019 and had failed to comply — were never before the Court. Held sufficient to establish an error apparent on the face of the record. The order dated 30.07.2024 is recalled, the writ petition is restored to its original file for listing before the roster bench, and both sides are directed to maintain status quo as on this day regarding the suit schedule property.

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:42330 RP No. 393 of 2024

¶2

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 25^TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶7

REVIEW PETITION NO.393 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

YOGESHA S/O. ERAPNA THIMMEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS R/O. ABALAVADI VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 425

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI NITIN RAMESH, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by KRISHNAPPA LAXMI YASHODA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

N. SURESHA S/O. LATE C. NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS

¶15

SRIKANTAIAH S/O. LATE C. NANJUNDAIAH AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS

¶16

BOTH ARE RESIDING AT R/O. ABALAVADI VILLAGE KOPPA HOBLI, MADDUR TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571 425

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SMT. JAYASHREE P., ADVOCATE)

¶19

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, 1908 READ WITH ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO

¶20

¶21

NC: 2025:KHC:42330 RP No. 393 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

CALL FOR THE RECORDS IN WP NO.20075/2024 BEFORE THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU AND REVIEW THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU IN WP NO.20075/2024 DATED 30/7/2024, PRODUCED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-A.

¶24

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

¶25

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS

¶26

ORAL ORDER

¶27

Learned Counsel, Smt.Jayashree.P., has entered appearance for the respondents. The learned counsel is present before the court.

¶28

Learned Counsel for the review petitioner submits that the respondents filed the writ petition before this Court being aggrieved of the order passed by the Executing Court in an interlocutory application by the petitioner herein under Order XXVI Rule 10 (b) read with

¶29

Section 151 of CPC in Execution Case No.162/2019.

¶30

However, this Court accepted the submissions

¶31

made at the bar and without even issuing notice to the

¶32

¶33

NC: 2025:KHC:42330 RP No. 393 of 2024

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

respondent, that is the petitioner herein, this Court proceeded to pass the order on the date when the matter had come up for Preliminary Hearing before this Court.

¶36

Learned Counsel submits that the respondents have concealed the fact that the review petitioner had filed the execution case based on the compromise decree passed in the Lok Adalat and on failure of the respondents herein in complying with the terms of the settlement, the review petitioner had approached the Executing Court. Therefore the question of the Executing Court accepting the amount sought to be tendered at the hands of the respondent at this stage would not arise. The matter was required to be considered on its merits.

¶37

Learned counsel would therefore submit that the order passed in the writ petition may be recalled and the writ petition may be restored to enable the review petitioner herein to contest the matter before this Court.

¶38

¶39

NC: 2025:KHC:42330 RP No. 393 of 2024

¶40

HC-KAR

¶41

Learned Counsel for the respondents however submits that the submissions made before this Court was that in terms of the compromise decree, the respondents herein had agreed to pay Rs.2,30,000/- to the review petitioner herein on or before 09.06.2019 and therefore the review petitioner cannot contend that any concealment was made on the part of the respondents herein when the writ petition was heard by this Court.

¶42

Having heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner, the learned counsel for the respondents and on perusing the petition papers, this Court is of the considered opinion that the writ petition was disposed of on the date when the matter was listed for Preliminary Hearing, without notice to the respondents, only on the basis of the submissions made by the learned counsel for the writ petitioner. The facts sought to be submitted now at the hands of the review petitioner were not brought to the notice of this Court.

¶43

NC: 2025:KHC:42330 RP No. 393 of 2024

¶44

¶45

HC-KAR

¶46

This is sufficient to hold that the review petitioner

¶47

has made out a case of an error apparent on the face of the record.

¶48

Accordingly, the review petition is allowed . The order dated 30.07.2024 passed in W.P.No.20075/2024 is hereby recalled. The writ petition is restored to its original file. Office is directed to list the writ petition before the bench having roster.

¶49

Parties are directed to maintain status quo as on

¶50

this day regarding the suit schedule property.

¶51

Ordered accordingly.

¶52

Sd/(R DEVDAS) JUDGE

¶53

JT/CT:VC

Yogesha v. N Suresha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesha v. N Suresha

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jeetendra Kumar Rajan Vs the State of Karnataka

Murthy Textiles and Tailor Vs Smt. Archana D T

Sri. Jayadevaiah Hiremath Vs Sri. M. R. Krishna Reddy

Pranava K N Vs the Karnataka State Law University

Gravity One Living Space Pvt. Ltd., Vs Naagamma

Smt. Veeramma @ Chikkaveeramma Vs the State of Karnataka