Dismissed¶29

Sri.Basavaraju v. Sri.Basavaraju

Karnataka HC10 Apr 2026RP/183/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Bengaluru); RP No. 183 of 2026; review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC; dismissed on counsel's undertaking to seek correction of the order dated 01.09.2022 in W.P.No.22889/2021 (GM-RES); petitioner was respondent no.2 in the writ petition; para 8 wording 'Defendants' vs 'Defendant No.2 to 4'; liberty to file correction application; pending interlocutory applications disposed of; bench: R. Nataraj; parties resident of Annur Village, Kasaba Hobli, H.D. Kote Taluk, Mysuru District.

What did the court decide?

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for correction of the order dated 01.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.22889/2021; pending interlocutory applications disposed of. ¶29

Sri.Basavaraju Vs Sri.Basavaraju — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for correction of the order dated 01.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.22889/2021; pending interlocutory applications disposed of.

¶29

Issue for consideration

Whether the final order dated 01.09.2022 in WP No.22889/2021 (GM-RES) should be clarified as not applicable to the petitioner (who was respondent no.2 in that writ petition), and whether para 8 of the judgment should read 'Defendant No.2 to 4' instead of 'Defendants'.

¶24

Court's answer

The review petition is dismissed, the court acting on counsel's submission that he would file an appropriate application for correction of the order dated 01.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.22889/2021 and would not pursue the petition.

¶29

Ratio / Principle

Liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file an appropriate application for correction of the order dated 01.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.22889/2021.

¶29

Key takeaways

Pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and stand disposed of.ratio¶33-34

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition No. 183 of 2026, filed under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC by Sri Basavaraju, prayed for clarification of the final order dated 01.09.2022 passed by the High Court of Karnataka in W.P.No.22889/2021 (GM-RES) - namely, that the said order be made clear as not applicable to the petitioner, who was respondent no.2 in that writ petition - and for correction of para 8 of the judgment to read 'Defendant No.2 to 4' in place of 'Defendants'. Coming on for orders, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he would file an appropriate application for correction of the order dated 01.09.2022 and would not pursue the review petition. Justice R. Nataraj noted the submission, dismissed the review petition, reserved liberty to the petitioner to file the correction application, and held that pending interlocutory applications do not survive and stand disposed of. Oral order dated 10 April 2026.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:20027 RP No. 183 of 2026

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ REVIEW PETITION NO. 183 OF 2026

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

SRI. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS S/O. LATE BASAVEGOWDA R/AT. ANNUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. B.S. NAGARAJ, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by HEMALATHA J Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. BASAVARAJU AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS S/O. LATE BASAVEGOWDA R/AT. ANNUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT

¶15

SMT. R. SUSHEELA W/O. LATE B. MARISIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS,

¶16

SRI. M. VINAY S/O. LATE B MARISIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS,

¶17

SMT. VIDYA S/O. LATE B. MARISIDDEGOWDA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS,

¶18

ALL ARE R/AT ANNUR VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, H.D. KOTE TALUK,

¶19

¶20

NC: 2026:KHC:20027 RP No. 183 of 2026

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

MYSURU DISTRICT -571114

¶23

…RESPONDENTS

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION IT IS NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THAT THE FINAL ORDER DATED 01.09.2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO.22889/2021 (GM-RES) IS NOT MADE APPLICABLE TO THIS PETITIONER WHO IS THE RESPONDENT NO.2, WP NO.22889/2021 (GM-RES) AND, FURTHER IT IS NECESSARY TO CLARIFY PARA 8 OF THE JUDGMENT INSTEAD OF THE WORD DEFENDANTS IT IS TO BE STATED AS DEFENDANT NO.2 TO 4.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. NATARAJ

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he would file appropriate application for correction of the order dated 01.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.22889/2021 and he would not pursue this petition.

¶29

His submission is noted. In view of his submission, this review petition is dismissed. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioner to file appropriate application for correction of the order dated 01.09.2022 passed in W.P.No.22889/2021.

¶30

NC: 2026:KHC:20027 RP No. 183 of 2026

¶31

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33