Smt. Pramoda Devi Wadiyar Vs Chaduranga Kanthraj Urs

SMT JAYA PALASHRI ANIL WIFE OF SRI.ANIL ASHWATH, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.41, “CHAITANYA”, LAGROVE VILLA KUNDALAHALLI POST BENGALURU -560 037

¶17

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:13329 RP No. 569 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

SRI. M.L.VARCHUS VIN S.S.RAJE URS, SON OF LATE M.R.LAKSMIKANTHRAJ URS AND LATE MEENAKSHI DEVI, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.56, DREAM MEADOWS, KUNDALAHALLI POST, BENGALURU -560 037

¶20

SMT.KAMAKSHI DEVI WIFE OF ATHMANYA DEV, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.164, CHAMUNDESHWARI KRUPA, 5^TH MAIN, DEFENCE COLONY, INDIRANAGAR, BENGALURU -560 038

¶21

SMT.INDRAKSHI DEVI, WIFE OF SRI.R.RAJACHANDRA, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.241, 15^TH MAIN, RMV EXTENSION BENGALURU -560 080.

¶22

SRI.RUDRAPRATHAP SINGH SON OF LATE VISHALAKSHI DEVI, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS RESIDING AT SHREEYUM, BANGALORE PALACE GROUNDS, RAMANAMAHARSHI ROAD, BENGALURU -560 080.

¶23

SHRUTI KIRTI DEVI DAUGHTER OF LATE VISHALAKSHI DEVI, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, RESIDING AT SHREEYUM, BANGALORE PALACE GROUNDS, RAMANAMAHARSHI ROAD, BENGALURU -560 080.

¶24

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:13329 RP No. 569 of 2025

¶25

HC-KAR

¶26

SMT. TRIPURASUNDARI DEVI WIFE OF SRI.SWAROOP ANAND, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.17, PRESTIGE DORCHESTER, BEHIND JAKKUR FLYING CLUB, JAKKUR, BENGALURU -560 065

¶27

SMT. DEEPAMALINI DEVI WIFE OF SRI.JAIDEEP BHALE RAO, AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.304, BRIGADE PARKWAY, NO.2636, 2^ND MAIN ROAD, V.V.MOHALLA, MYSURU -570 002

¶28

SMT. KIRTI MALINI DEVI WIFE OF SRI.SHAILESH VIKRAM SINGH, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.5, PRESTIGE DORCHESTER, BEHIND JAKKUR FLYING CLUB, JAKKUR, BENGALURU 560 065.

¶29

…RESPONDENTS

¶30

(BY SRI SAMEER SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

¶31

SRI B.V.NIDHISHREE, ADVOCATE FOR R6 AND R7;

¶32

VIDE ORDER DATED 03.02.2026, NOTICE TO R2 TO R4 AND R8 TO R10 IS DISPENSED WITH;

¶33

SRI SRINIVAS .V, ADVOCATE FOR R5)

¶34

THIS REVIEW PETITION FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2025 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN CRP NO.387/2024 (ANNEXURE A) AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE SAID CIVIL REVISION PETITION TO FILE FOR HEARING AND DISPOSAL ON MERITS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶35

4 -

¶36

NC: 2026:KHC:13329 RP No. 569 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

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

¶39

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V SRISHANANDA

¶40

ORAL ORDER

¶41

Heard Sri R.S.Ravi, learned Senior Advocate for Sri S. Rajendra, learned counsel for the review petitioner and Sri Sameer Sharma, learned counsel for the first respondent.

¶42

At the outset, Sri Ravi, learned Senior Advocate submitted that the premise on which memo came to be filed and final order came to be passed is based on the memo that the review merges with main order and there cannot be independent challenge to the order of review.

¶43

In this regard, learned Senior Advocate places reliance on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Satheesh V.K. v. Federal Bank Ltd., reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 2046 .

¶44

He invited attention of this Court to paragraph 24 of the said judgment, which reads as under:

¶45

“24. However, the principle underlying Order XLVII, Rule 7(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure

¶46

5 -

¶47

NC: 2026:KHC:13329 RP No. 569 of 2025

¶48

HC-KAR

¶49

may be understood. Whenever a party aggrieved by a decree or order seeks a review thereof based on parameters indicated in section 114 read with Order XLVII of the Code of Civil Procedure and the application ultimately fails, the decree or order under review does not suffer any change. It remains intact. In such an eventuality, there is no merger of the decree or order under review in the order of rejection of the review because such rejection does not bring about any alteration or modification of the decree or order; rather, it results in an affirmance of the decree or order. Since there is no question of any merger, the party aggrieved by the rejection of the review petition has to challenge the decree or order, as the case may be, and not the order of rejection of the review petition. On the contrary, if the petition for review is allowed and the suit or proceedings is placed for rehearing, rule 7(1) permits the party aggrieved to immediately object to the order allowing the review or in an appeal from the decree or order finally passed or made in the suit, i.e., after rehearing of the matter in dispute.”

¶50