IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JOHN MICHAEL CUNHA REVIEW PETITION.NO.297 OF 2017 IN R.F.A.NO.60 OF 2014 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. BHAGYAMMA W/O LATE HANUMANTHE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 2. SMT. MAMATHA D/O LATE HANUMANATHE GOWDA, W/O C R PRAKASH, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, R/O CHIKKAKONDAGULA KOPPALU, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573201 3. SMT. SAVITHA D/O LATE HANUMANTHE GOWDA, W/O JAGADISH AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS PETITIONER NO.1 & 3 ARE PERMANENT RESIDENTS OF BITTAGONDANAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573201 (By Sri: AMRUTHESH C, ADVOCATE) ... PETITIONERS AND:
1. SRI. K SOMASHEKAR S/O B KRISHNEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/O GAVENAHALLI VILLAGE, KASABA HOBLI, HASSAN TALUK & DISTRICT-573201 2. PANDU @ PANDURAJ SHETTY SINCE DECEASED REPRESENTED BY HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES (A) SMT SHREEKANTHI, W/O LATE PANDU B H @ PANDURAJ SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, (B) KUMARI YAKSHITHA D/O LATE PANDU B H @ PANDURAJ SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 14 YEARS, REPRESENTED BY HER NATURAL GUARDIAN-MOTHER BOTH RESPONDENT NO. 2(A) & 2(B) ARE RESIDENT OF “MATTIKULA HOUSE” MULURU VILLAGE, KINNIKAMBALA POST, MANGALURU TALUK & DISTRICT-574001 ... RESPONDENTS THIS RP IS FILED UNDER ORDER XLVII RULE 1 R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 14.03.2014 PASSED IN RFA NO.60/2014(SP-DB) ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THIS RP COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH J., MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioners were appellants in RFA No.60 of 2014. By the order dated 14.03.2014, the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the same, it is submitted that they preferred S.L.P. No.11908 of 2014. By the order dated 12.09.2014 by condoning the delay, S.L.P. No.11908 of 2014 was dismissed. Thereafter, the present petition is filed. There is a delay in filing the petition.
2. The plea of the petitioners on merits is that while dismissing the appeal, notice was not ordered to the second respondent therein.
3. Whether a notice is served or not on the respondents herein, is of no consequence to the petitioners herein in view of the fact that the appeal of the petitioners herein was dismissed. The SLP No.11908 of 2014 has also been dismissed. Hence, we find no error on the face of the record that calls for any interference by this Court. Consequently, the petition is dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
JUDGE JUDGE *mn/-