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.

Smt. L. C. Sobharani Vs State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Home
Karnataka HC
2026
Smt. L. C. Sobharani Vs State of KarnatakaSmt. L. C. Sobharani v. State of Karnataka

Disposed¶45

Smt. L. C. Sobharani v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Jun 2026RP/276/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; RP No. 276 of 2025; Suraj Govindaraj, J.; decided 11.06.2026. Review petition under Order 47 Rule 1 read with Section 114 CPC against judgment dated 12.09.2024 in W.P. No. 10899/2024. Maintainability of review where the underlying Deputy Commissioner's senior-citizen maintenance order dated 03.11.2022 went unchallenged; grounds of non-service of notice, payment/compliance and jurisdiction to set aside a sale deed to be raised in appeal or execution proceedings, not in review; petition disposed of with liberty reserved. Keywords: review petition maintainability; Order 47 Rule 1 CPC; Section 114 CPC; alternative remedy; senior citizen maintenance; Deputy Commissioner; execution petition; sale deed.

What did the court decide?

Review petition disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise the grounds in an appeal against the Deputy Commissioner's order or before the Execution Petition.

Why is it important?

Since the order of the Deputy Commissioner was not challenged by the petitioner, the review petition cannot be maintained on the grounds raised (non-service of notice, alleged payment, and lack of jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner). ¶43

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Review petition disposed of, reserving liberty to the petitioners to raise the grounds in an appeal against the Deputy Commissioner's order or before the Execution Petition.

Issue for consideration

Whether the review petition against the final order and judgment dated 12.09.2024 in W.P. No. 10899/2024 is maintainable on the grounds of non-service of notice, alleged payment/compliance, and want of jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner to set aside the sale deed.

Court's answer

Since the order of the Deputy Commissioner was not challenged by the petitioner, the review petition cannot be maintained on the grounds raised (non-service of notice, alleged payment, and lack of jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner).

Ratio / Principle

Those grounds could only be raised in an appeal challenging the Deputy Commissioner's order, or in the Execution Petition to establish compliance with the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner; liberty was reserved accordingly.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Review Petition under Order 47 Rule 1 r/w Section 114 CPC against the final order and judgment dated 12.09.2024 in W.P. No. 10899/2024, which had partly allowed the writ petition by directing respondent No.2 to consider a representation in light of the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 03.11.2022 allowing a senior citizen's application for monthly maintenance. Grounds pressed in review: non-service of notice on the petitioner, alleged payment of all monies, and want of jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner to set aside the sale deed. Held: the Deputy Commissioner's order not having been challenged, a review petition cannot be maintained on those grounds; they could only be raised in an appeal challenging the Deputy Commissioner's order or in the Execution Petition to establish compliance. Petition disposed of reserving such liberty (Suraj Govindaraj, J.).

A

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28444 RP No. 276 of 2025

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

REVIEW PETITION NO. 276 OF 2025

BETWEEN:

SMT. L. C. SOBHARANI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS W/O SRUESH G N LAKSHMISAGAR VILLAGE HADIKERE AMRUTAPURA HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 577 228

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. DHEERAJ S J.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OBAVVA CIRCLE CHITRADURGA 577 501

THE ASSISTANT COMMIKSSIONER INDIRANAGAR TARIKERE 577 228

SMT. BASAMMA AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS W/O LATE CHANDRAPPA RESIDING AT LAKSHMI SAGAR VILLAGE HADIKERE POST, AMRUTHPUR HOBLI TARIKERE TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 577 228

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:28444 RP No. 276 of 2025

HC-KAR

SMT L C ASHA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS W/O GNAGADARAPPA KACHAPURA VILLAGE SRIRAMPURA HOBLI HOSADURGA TALUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 577527

SMT. L C INDRAMMA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS D/O LATE CHANDRAPPA KACHAPURA VILLAGE SRIRAMAURA HOBLI HOSADURGA TLAUK CHITRADURGA DISTRICT KARNATAKA 577 527

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. MOHAMMED JAFFER SHAH., AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. H. SUNIL KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 R/W SEC. 114 OF CPC, 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE FINAL ORDER AND JUDGMENT DATED 12.09.2024 PASSED BY THIS HONBLE COURT IN WP NO. 10899/2024 VIDE ANNEXURE A. AND ETC.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

ORAL ORDER

The petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:

a. Review the Final Order and Judgment dated 12.09.2024 passed by this Hon’ble Court in Writ Petition No.10899 of 2024 vide Annexure-A;

b. Call for records in Writ Petition No.10899 of 2024;

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28444 RP No. 276 of 2025

HC-KAR

c. Pass such other and further orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice.

A review of the order dated 12.09.2025 in Sri Kidiyoor Survarna Vittalaksha Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) & Anr., in WP No.10899 of 2024 passed by the Coordinate Branch is sought for on the ground that the petitioner had not been served with a notice.

The second submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner has made payment of all the monies and as such the order considering the representation of the respondents could not be considered.

Thirdly, his submission is that the Assistant Commissioner or the Deputy Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to set aside the sale deed.

WP No.10899 of 2024 came to be partly allowed by order dated 12.09.2024 directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner-therein in light of the order dated 03.11.2022 passed by the Deputy Commissioner allowing the application filed by a senior citizen directing payment of monthly

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:28444 RP No. 276 of 2025

HC-KAR

maintenance which was allegedly not paid by the petitioners-herein.

The said order directing consideration of representation arising as an execution to the order passed by Deputy Commissioner. The order passed by Deputy Commissioner, not having been challenged by the petitioner, a Review Petition cannot be maintained on the aforesaid grounds.

Those grounds could only be raised an appeal filed for challenging the order of Deputy Commissioner or in the Execution Petition to establish that the petitioners has complied with the petition with the orders passed by the Deputy Commissioner.

Reserving such liberty, the petition stands disposed of .

SD/(SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE

SR

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Issues for consideration

1 issue framed by the court

AI extract

1.
Whether the review petition against the final order and judgment dated 12.09.2024 in W.P. No. 10899/2024 is maintainable on the grounds of non-service of notice, alleged payment/compliance, and want of jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner to set aside the sale deed.¶43
The court held
Since the order of the Deputy Commissioner was not challenged by the petitioner, the review petition cannot be maintained on the grounds raised (non-service of notice, alleged payment, and lack of jurisdiction of the Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner).ratio¶43

Statutes considered

2 provisions across 1 enactments

AI extract

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order 47 Rule 1¶24 Section 114¶24

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Final order and judgment dated 12.09.2024 in W.P. No. 10899/2024 (Annexure-A), whereby the writ petition came to be partly allowed directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner-therein's representation in light of the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 03.11.2022; sought to be reviewed in this petition.¶24
High Court of Karnataka · 12.09.2024
Prior proceeding
W.P. No. 10899 of 2024 was partly allowed by order dated 12.09.2024, directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner therein arising as an execution to the Deputy Commissioner's order.¶38
Prior proceeding
By order dated 03.11.2022 the Deputy Commissioner allowed an application filed by a senior citizen directing payment of monthly maintenance, which was allegedly not paid by the petitioners herein; that order was not challenged.¶38

Parties & counsel

AI extract

petitioner
Smt. L. C. Sobharani¶10
Dheeraj S J
respondent
State of Karnataka, represented by the Deputy Commissioner, Obavva Circle, Chitradurga¶15
Mohammed Jaffer Shah
respondent
The Assistant Commissioner, Indiranagar, Tarikere¶16
Mohammed Jaffer Shah
respondent
Smt. Basamma¶17
H. Sunil Kumar
respondent
Smt. L C Asha¶20
respondent
Smt. L C Indramma¶21

Coram

AI extract

Suraj Govindarajauthor¶26

Case details

As recorded by the court registry

Court: Karnataka HC
Decided on: 11 Jun 2026 · June
Registered: 3 Jul 2025
Case no.: RP/276/2025
CNR: KAHC010433962025
Bench: Suraj Govindara
Disposal: DISPOSED
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 Suraj Govindara

Mohan Kiran Kamble Vs the State of Karnataka
10 Jun 2026
Sri Karthik S Vs the State of Karnataka
10 Jun 2026
M/S Suzlon Energy Limited Vs the State of Karnataka
10 Jun 2026
Miss Tenzin Dickyi Vs State of Karnataka
11 Jun 2026
M/S Columbia Developers Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Secretary
11 Jun 2026
K Lakkamma Vs Smt. Gowramma
11 Jun 2026

Cite this judgement

Smt. L. C. Sobharani v. State of Karnataka, RP/276/2025 (KA), decided on 11 June 2026.

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 Procedure, 1908Order 47 Rule 1 · Section 114

View all statutes

Procedural history3

Final order and judgment dated 12.09.2024 in W.P. No. 10899/2024 (Annexure-A), whereby the writ petition came to be partly allowed directing respondent No.2 to consider the petitioner-therein's representation in light of the Deputy Commissioner's order dated 03.11.2022; sought to be reviewed in this petition.High Court of Karnataka · 12.09.2024
W.P. No. 10899 of 2024 was partly allowed by order dated 12.09.2024, directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation of the petitioner therein arising as an execution to the Deputy Commissioner's order.
By order dated 03.11.2022 the Deputy Commissioner allowed an application filed by a senior citizen directing payment of monthly maintenance, which was allegedly not paid by the petitioners herein; that order was not challenged.

View full history

Bench / Coram

Suraj Govindaraj

Parties & counsel