Dismissed¶¶50

Ummar Ismail Khan v. Varalakshmamma

Karnataka HC21 Apr 2026RP/529/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, single-judge oral order (E.S. Indiresh J.), 21.04.2026; Review Petition No.529/2024 under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC against order dated 06.09.2022 in C.R.P.No.234/2022; condonation of 722 days' delay refused; I.A.1/2026 dismissed under Section 5, Limitation Act 1963; State of Nagaland v. Lipok Ao, (2005) 3 SCC 752, followed; Review Petition dismissed; parties from Koramangala, Bengaluru and Chanapatna Taluk, Ramanagara District.

What did the court decide?

There being a delay of nearly two years in filing the Review Petition, and no acceptable grounds forthcoming in the affidavit accompanying the condonation application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, I.A.1/2026 is dismissed. ¶¶49

Ummar Ismail Khan Vs Varalakshmamma — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21453 RP No. 529 of 2024

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 21^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH REVIEW PETITION NO.529 OF 2024

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

UMMAR ISMAIL KHAN

¶10

DR MUMTAZ AHMED KHAN, AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, R/AT NO 114, 17TH MAIN, 2^ND CROSS, 5^TH BLOCK, KORAMANGALA BENGALURU - 560 095.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. RASHEED KHAN, ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by CHAYA S A

¶14

Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶15

AND:

¶16

VARALAKSHMAMMA D/O VENKATARAMAIAH AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS.

¶17

KAMALAMMA

W/O. LATE ASHWATH,

AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS

NC: 2026:KHC:21453 RP No. 529 of 2024

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

VANITHA

¶24

D/O. LATE ASWATH NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS

¶25

UMESH

¶26

S/O. LATE ASWATH NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS

¶27

RUKMINI

¶28

D/O. LATE ASWATH NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS

¶29

GIRIJA D/O. LATE ASWATH NARAYAN, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS.

¶30

RESPONDENTS NO.1 TO 6 ARE R/AT YALACHIPALYA VILLAGE, KASBA HOBLI, CHANAPATNA TALUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160.

¶31

PUTTATHAYAMMA W/O. CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS,

¶32

MURALIDHARA S/O. CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS,

¶33

NAGARATHNAMMA D/O. CHANNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS,

¶34

RESPONDENTS NO.7 TO 10 ARE R/AT HONGANURU VILLAGE,

¶35

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:21453 RP No. 529 of 2024

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

KASABA HOBLI, CHANAPATNA TLAUK, RAMANAGARA DISTRICT-562 160.

¶39

…RESPONDENTS

¶40

THIS RP IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND ORDER DATED 06/09/2022 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN C.R.P.NO.234/2022 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶41

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS ALONG WITH I.A.1/2026, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH

¶42

ORAL ORDER

¶43

Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner.

¶44

This Review Petition is filed assailing the Order of this Court dated 06.09.2022 in Civil Revision Petition No.234/2022.

¶45

Since there is delay of 722 days in filing the Review Petition, the petitioner has filed I.A.1/2026 seeking condonation of delay.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:21453 RP No. 529 of 2024

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

Having taken note of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, I have carefully examined the reasons assigned by the petitioner in I.A.1/2026. Since there is delay of nearly two years in filing the Review Petition and also there are no acceptable grounds forthcoming in the affidavit accompanying the application to condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, I.A.1/2026 is dismissed.

¶50

Following the declaration of law made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of STATE OF NAGALAND vs. LIPOK AO AND OTHERS reported in 2005(3) SCC 752, as there are no sufficient reasons to condone the delay in I.A.1/2026, the Review Petition is dismissed.

¶51

SD/(E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE

¶52

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 15

¶53

sac

Ummar Ismail Khan v. Varalakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ummar Ismail Khan v. Varalakshmamma

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

A G Totappa S/O Basappa Vs Neelamma W/O Govindappa

T.v.Nagaraj Vs Smt. Munilakshmamma

Smt. Prabhavati M Vs M/S Sunrise Group

Sri Narayanareddy K Vs State of Karnataka

Vikaram R Alias Vikki Vs State of Karnataka

Sangeetha M [email protected] Sangeetha Vs Mrs Nivedita Shinde