Skip to content

The research platform for Indian law — judgements, legislation and the citations between them. Free to search, with the original document behind every result.

A product of LawSathi.

Research

Search Legislation Research tools

Browse

Courts Case types Topics Most-cited judgements Sources

LawSathi

Practice platform Blog

© 2026 LawSathiTerms PrivacyResearch aid, not the official record.

Sri. R. Ramu Vs Sri. Anjanappa — Karnataka HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2025
Sri. R. Ramu Vs Sri. AnjanappaSri. R. Ramu v. Sri. Anjanappa

Dismissed¶39

Sri. R. Ramu v. Sri. Anjanappa

Karnataka HC6 Feb 2025RP/484/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; NC: 2025:KHC:5397; RP No. 484 of 2024; decision dated 06.02.2025; V Srishananda J (single judge). Keywords: review petition; Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; Order II Rule 2 CPC; RFA No.532/2016; judgment dated 02.09.2024; RFA No.1509/2010 (decree dated 14.06.2016); RFA No.1510/2010; O.S.No.3695/1998; O.S.No.6478/2013 (printed once as O.S.No.6498/2013); error apparent on record; suppression of decree; cost of Rs.10,000/-; parties R. Ramu, Anjanappa, G. Varadraja Naik, R. Jagannath, deceased R. Satyanarayana (sons of Late Ramraju); outcome: review petition dismissed, no relief.

What did the court decide?

It is open to the review petitioner to bring the fact of the decree against respondent No.2 (including the decree in RFA No.1509/2010 and the matter of RFA No.1510/2010) to the notice of the learned Trial Judge in O.S.No.3695/1998, which is being tried along with O.S.No.6498/2013 [as printed], and obtain necessary orders, including by filing an application under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against respondent No.2.

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the judgment dated 02.09.2024 in RFA No.532/2016 is liable to be reviewed on the ground that respondent No.2 suppressed his having suffered a decree in RFA No.1509/2010 dated 14.06.2016, which the petitioner contends constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.

Court's answer

It is open to the review petitioner to bring the fact of the decree against respondent No.2 (including the decree in RFA No.1509/2010 and the matter of RFA No.1510/2010) to the notice of the learned Trial Judge in O.S.No.3695/1998, which is being tried along with O.S.No.6498/2013 [as printed], and obtain necessary orders, including by filing an application under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against respondent No.2.

Ratio / Principle

On the above observation, the review petition does not merit admission and is accordingly dismissed.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC by the respondent in RFA No.532/2016 seeking review of this Court's judgment dated 02.09.2024, by which the judgment in O.S.No.3695/1998 was set aside on payment of Rs.10,000/- cost by the appellant, permitting the appellant to contest the suit on merits, with O.S.No.3695/1998 to be tried along with connected O.S.No.6478/2013. Ground of review: respondent No.2 (G. Varadaraja Naik) allegedly suppressed that he had suffered a decree in RFA No.1509/2010 dated 14.06.2016, said to be an error apparent on record, especially since the decree in O.S.No.3695/1998 had become final qua respondent No.2 in RFA No.1510/2010. Held: the remedy lies before the learned Trial Judge in O.S.No.3695/1998, where the petitioner may obtain necessary orders, including an application under Order II Rule 2 CPC against respondent No.2; the review petition does not merit admission and is dismissed. Single Bench: V. Srishananda, J.

A

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5397 RP No. 484 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 6^TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

REVIEW PETITION NO. 484 OF 2024

BETWEEN:

SRI. R. RAMU S/O. LATE RAMRAJU, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, OCC: AGRICULTURE, PRESENTLY R/O. NO. 149, ANNAPURNESHWARI BADAWANE, VEERBHADRA NAGAR, BSK III, BENGALURU - 560 085.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. D. RAVI KUMAR GOKAKAKAR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by MALATESH K C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

SRI. ANJANAPPA S/O. LATE RAMRAJU, AGE: 60 YEARS, R/O NO. 32, 8TH MAIN, BEML LAYOUT, 5TH STAGE, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098.

SRI. G. VARADRAJA NAIK S/O LATE G.R. NAIK, AGE 58 YEARS, R/O. NO. 6, K.R. ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 004.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5397 RP No. 484 of 2024

R. JAGANNATH S/O. LATE RAMRAJU, AGE 75 YEARS, R/O. NO.107/2, 11TH CROSS, PADARAYANPURA, BENGALURU - 560 026.

R. SATYANARAYANA S/O. RAMRAJU, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS., R1 AND R3.

…RESPONDENTS

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO A) REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AS ANNEXURE A i.e. JUDGMENT DATED 02.09.2024 IN R.F.A. NO. 532/2016 PASSED BUY THIS HON'BLE COURT AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY,

ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

ORAL ORDER

Heard Sri. B. Ravi Kumar Gokakakar, learned counsel appearing for the Review Petitioner.

Respondent No.1 - Sri. R. Ramu who did not choose

to contest the appeal in RFA No.532/2016. Though he was

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5397 RP No. 484 of 2024

served with the notice of the appeal, he remained unrepresented, is challenging the order dated 02.09.2024 passed in RFA No.532/2016.

By the said order, this Court set aside the impugned judgment in O.S.No.3695/1998 on payment of cost of Rs.10,000/- payable by the appellant and permitted the appellant to contest the suit on merits in accordance with law. It is also observed by this Court that a connected offshoot proceedings is pending in O.S.No.6478/2013 and O.S.No.3695/1998 is to be tried along with O.S.No.6478/2013.

Respondent No.1 has now filed the present review on the ground that respondent No.2 - Sri. G. Varadaraja Naik has suppressed the fact of he having suffered a decree in RFA No.1509/2010 dated 14.06.2016 and again he has been provided a chance now to contest O.S.No.3695/1998 and therefore there is error apparent on record to seek the review of the order passed in RFA No.532/2016.

If respondent No.2 is taking advantage of the setting aside of the decree in O.S.No.3695/1998 which had

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:5397 RP No. 484 of 2024

become final in so far as respondent No.2 in RFA No.1510/2010 is concerned, it is always open for the present Review Petitioner to bring it to the notice of the learned Trial Judge in O.S.No.3695/1998 which is now being tried along with O.S.No.6498/2013 and necessary orders can be obtained including filing necessary application under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against respondent No.2.

With that observation, the present Review Petition does not merit for admission. Accordingly, the review petition is

dismissed.

Sd/(V SRISHANANDA) JUDGE

SJK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 31 CT: BHK

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the judgment dated 02.09.2024 in RFA No.532/2016 is liable to be reviewed on the ground that respondent No.2 suppressed his having suffered a decree in RFA No.1509/2010 dated 14.06.2016, which the petitioner contends constitutes an error apparent on the face of the record.¶33
The court held
It is open to the review petitioner to bring the fact of the decree against respondent No.2 (including the decree in RFA No.1509/2010 and the matter of RFA No.1510/2010) to the notice of the learned Trial Judge in O.S.No.3695/1998, which is being tried along with O.S.No.6498/2013 [as printed], and obtain necessary orders, including by filing an application under Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure as against respondent No.2.ratio¶37

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil ProcedureOrder 47 Rule 1¶21 Order II Rule 2¶37

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Judgment dated 02.09.2024 in R.F.A. No. 532/2016 passed by this Court (the High Court of Karnataka), whereby the judgment in O.S.No.3695/1998 was set aside on payment of Rs.10,000/- cost by the appellant, who was permitted to contest the suit on merits, with direction that O.S.No.3695/1998 be tried along with O.S.No.6478/2013.¶31
High Court of Karnataka · 02.09.2024
Prior proceeding
Suit O.S.No.3695/1998: its judgment was set aside by the order under review, and the suit is directed to be tried along with connected O.S.No.6478/2013.¶32
Prior proceeding
Ground of review: respondent No.2 allegedly suppressed that he had suffered a decree in RFA No.1509/2010 dated 14.06.2016.¶33
Prior proceeding
As observed by the Court, the decree in O.S.No.3695/1998 had become final in so far as respondent No.2 is concerned, in RFA No.1510/2010.¶37

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
SRI. R. RAMU S/O. LATE RAMRAJU¶9
D. Ravi Kumar Gokakakar
respondent
SRI. ANJANAPPA S/O. LATE RAMRAJU¶14
respondent
SRI. G. VARADRAJA NAIK S/O LATE G.R. NAIK¶15
respondent
R. JAGANNATH S/O. LATE RAMRAJU¶18
respondent
R. SATYANARAYANA S/O. RAMRAJU, SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LRS. (LRs ARE R1 AND R3)¶19

Coram

AI extract

V SRISHANANDAauthor¶24

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 6 Feb 2025 · February
Registered: 4 Nov 2024
Case no.: RP/484/2024
CNR: KAHC010593142024
Bench: V Srishananda
Disposal: DISMISSED
Case type: Review Petition

Similar cases

Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court

Finding judgements on the same questions…

More from V Srishananda

K P Kirankumar @ Kiran Vs State by Peenya Police
5 Feb 2025
H P Anilkumar Vs the State of Karnataka
5 Feb 2025
Muniraju Vs the State of Karnataka
4 Feb 2025
Smt Usha H Vs Sri Sachin T v
6 Feb 2025
Porangada K Kariappa Vs the State of Karnataka
6 Feb 2025
R Shivakumar Vs the State of Karnataka
6 Feb 2025

Cite this judgement

Sri. R. Ramu v. Sri. Anjanappa, RP/484/2024 (KA), decided on 6 February 2025.

The High Court of Karnataka publishes no neutral citation for this judgement — cite it by case number and date of decision.

Statutes2

Code of Civil ProcedureOrder 47 Rule 1 · Order II Rule 2

View all statutes

Procedural history4

Judgment dated 02.09.2024 in R.F.A. No. 532/2016 passed by this Court (the High Court of Karnataka), whereby the judgment in O.S.No.3695/1998 was set aside on payment of Rs.10,000/- cost by the appellant, who was permitted to contest the suit on merits, with direction that O.S.No.3695/1998 be tried along with O.S.No.6478/2013.High Court of Karnataka · 02.09.2024
Suit O.S.No.3695/1998: its judgment was set aside by the order under review, and the suit is directed to be tried along with connected O.S.No.6478/2013.
Ground of review: respondent No.2 allegedly suppressed that he had suffered a decree in RFA No.1509/2010 dated 14.06.2016.

View full history

Bench / Coram

V SRISHANANDA

Parties & counsel