Dismissed¶47

Mr. Henry Coutinho v. N. M. a. Siddiq

Karnataka HC16 Jul 2026RP/6/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC (Bengaluru), RP No. 6 of 2026, decided 16.07.2026 by Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur; review petition under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC seeking review of order dated 17.11.2025 in W.P.No.27896/2025; writ petition had directed I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru to expedite disposal of appeal R.A.No.59/2025; petitioner sought fixation of specific time frame; Court noted arguments concluded and matter reserved for orders; no further order required; review petition dismissed; 18-day filing delay noted; no costs or amounts awarded.

What did the court decide?

The Court held there was no good ground or cogent reason to accept the petitioner's submission that a specific time frame be fixed for disposal of R.A.No.59/2025. ¶38

Mr. Henry Coutinho Vs N. M. a. Siddiq — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶47

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 17.11.2025 in W.P.No.27896/2025 calls for review so as to fix a specific time frame for disposal of R.A.No.59/2025 by the first Appellate Court.

¶46

Court's answer

The Court held there was no good ground or cogent reason to accept the petitioner's submission that a specific time frame be fixed for disposal of R.A.No.59/2025.

¶38

Ratio / Principle

Since arguments in the appeal had concluded and the matter stood reserved for pronouncement of orders, nothing further remained to be done by the first Appellate Court except to pronounce its judgment.

¶45

Key takeaways

No further order was required because this Court had already directed the trial Court to decide R.A.No.59/2025 expeditiously; hence the matter did not call for review of the order.ratio¶46
Finding no good ground or cogent reason to entertain the present review petition, the Court dismissed it.ratio¶47

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition No. 6 of 2026 under Order XLVII Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC (filed with a delay of 18 days) by Henry Coutinho, through GPA holder Lionel Rasquinha, seeking review of the order dated 17.11.2025 passed in W.P.No.27896/2025, whereby the High Court had disposed of the writ petition and directed the I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru to dispose of the appeal in R.A.No.59/2025 expeditiously, providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to all parties. Counsel contended that a specific time frame should now be fixed for disposal of the appeal. The Court noted that arguments in the appeal had already concluded and the matter was reserved for pronouncement of orders, leaving nothing further except pronouncement of the judgment; as the direction for expeditious disposal had already been given, no further order was required and the matter did not call for review. Finding no good ground or cogent reason to entertain the review petition, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pradeep Singh Yerur dismissed it (oral order dated 16.07.2026).

¶1

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

NC: 2026:KHC:36440 RP No. 6 of 2026

¶4

CNR: KAHC010008992026

¶5

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 16^TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR REVIEW PETITION NO. 6 OF 2026

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

MR. HENRY COUTINHO AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS S/O. LATE RAYMOND COUTINHO RESIDING AT: GC-1 GANESH SAGAR APARTMENTS 1^ST CROSS ROAD, SHIVABAGH KADRI, MANGALORE - 575 002. THROUGH GPA HOLDER MR. LIONEL RASQUINHA

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI RAKESH KINI, ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by GAVRIBIDANUR SUBRAMANYA GUPTA SREENATH Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

N. M. A. SIDDIQ AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS S/O. LATE M. BEARY RESIDING AT DOOR NO. 8-14-1206/1 CPC COMPOUND KUDROLI, MANGALURU - 575 003.

¶14

MR. VASANTH KAMATH AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS S/O. LATE GOPAL KRISHNA KAMATH RESIDING AT MAHAMAYA 2^ND CROSS ROAD, SHIVABAGH KADRI, KANKANADY POST MANGALORE - 575 002.

¶15

…RESPONDENTS

¶16

(BY SRI N.S.SRIRAJ GOWDA,ADVOCATE FOR R2; R1 SERVED - UNREPRESENTED)

¶17

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

NC: 2026:KHC:36440 RP No. 6 of 2026

¶20

CNR: KAHC010008992026

¶21

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 READ WITH SECTION 114 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.11.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.27896/2025.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

The present review petition is filed seeking review

¶26

the impugned order dated 17.11.2025 passed in W.P.No.27896/2025 by this Court.

¶27

There is a delay of 18 days in filing the present review petition.

¶28

This Court, by an order dated 17.11.2025,

¶29

disposed of the writ petition by passing the following order:

¶30

"i) The petition is disposed off; ii) I Additional Senior Civil Judge and CJM, Mangaluru is directed to dispose off the appeal in R.A.No.59/2025 expeditiously;

¶31

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:36440 RP No. 6 of 2026

¶34

CNR: KAHC010008992026

¶35

iii) It is needless to mention that the first Appellate Court shall provide reasonable opportunity of hearing to all the parties."

¶36

Learned counsel for petitioner submits that at the

¶37

time of disposal of the writ petition, he had filed a memo restricting the prayer for issuance of a direction to the first Appellate Court for expeditious disposal of R.A.No.59/2025. Therefore, it is contended that a specific time frame may now be fixed for disposal of the said appeal.

¶38

I have considered the submission made by the learned counsel for petitioner. However, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to accept the said submission.

¶39

Accepting the memo filed by the learned counsel for petitioner, this Court had disposed of the writ petition by directing the first Appellate Court to dispose of the appeal in R.A.No.59/2025 expeditiously.

¶40

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:36440 RP No. 6 of 2026

¶43

CNR: KAHC010008992026

¶44

It is now submitted by the learned counsels for

¶45

parties that arguments in the appeal have already been concluded and that the matter has been reserved for pronouncement of orders. Thus, nothing further remains to be done by the first Appellate Court except to pronounce its judgment.

¶46

Petitioner in this review petition seeks reconsideration of the matter to fix a time frame, but this Court has already directed the trial Court to decide the appeal in RA.No.59/2025 expeditiously. Hence, no further order is required and does not call for review of the order.

¶47

In the above circumstances, I do not find any good ground or cogent reason to entertain the present review petition. Accordingly, the review petition stands

¶48

dismissed .

¶49

Sd/(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE

¶50

CPN\List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17

Mr. Henry Coutinho v. N. M. a. Siddiq

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Henry Coutinho v. N. M. a. Siddiq

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mrs. Annapurana Vs Mr. Shivaprakash @ Manjunath

Sri. Muni Krishnappa Vs Smt. Narasamma

Sri Raghu H K Vs Sri M G Gangaiah

National Highways Authority of India Vs Sri Heri Roshan Fernandes

Smt. Meera M E Vs Mr. Manjunath

Sri. Bandihal.M Vs M/S. Unique Detective and Security Services Pvt. Ltd.