IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 PRESENT THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE JAYANT PATEL AND THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE B.SREENIVASE GOWDA REVIEW PETITION NO.58/2017 BETWEEN:
1. SMT. CHINNAMMA, W/O. LATE PAPAIAH REDDY, D/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH REDDY, AND LATE. AKKAYYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS, R/AT. NO 96, NEAR GOVERNMENT SCHOOL, DODDA THOGURU, ELECTRONIC CITY POST, BENGALURU – 560 100.
2. SMT. RATHNAMMA, W/O. LATE CHIKKAMUNI REDDY, D/O. LATE LAKSHMAIAH REDDY, AND LATE AKKAYYAMMA, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT DOOR NO. 54/1, MAILASANDRA, BEGUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 168.
PETITIONER NOS.1 & 2 ARE REPRESENTED THROUGH THEIR ATTORNEY HOLDER.
SRI. C. RAJAPPA REDDY, S/O. CHIKKA MUNIREDDY, AGED: 50 YEARS, R/AT. DOOR NO. 54/1, MAILASANDRA, BEGUR POST, BENGALURU - 560 168.
... PETITIONERS (By SRI. SANKET M. YENAGI, ADV.,) AND:
1. SRI. K. N. OBALA REDDY, S/O. LATE NANJAPPA REDDY, AGE: 65 YEARS, R/AT. KUDLU MAIN ROAD, SINGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU.
2. SRI. K. N. MUNIYAPPA REDDY, S/O. LATE NANJAPPA REDDY, AGE: 65 YEARS, R/AT. GOWRISHANKARA NILAYA, KUDLU MAIN ROAD, SINGASANDRA POST, BENGALURU.
... RESPONDENTS (By SRI. SREEVATSA, SR. ADV., FOR SRI. UDITA RAMESH, ADV., FOR R.1, R.2 - SERVED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER LXVII RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING THIS HON'BLE COURT TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 06/04/2009 PASSED IN RFA NO. 370/2000, ON THE FILE OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THIS REVIEW PETITION ALONG WITH I.A.Nos.1/2017, 2/2017 AND 3/2017 COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, JAYANT PATEL J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER We have heard Mr. Sanket M. Yenagi, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Sreevatsa, learned Senior counsel appearing with Mr. Udita Ramesh, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that petitioners were not parties in the proceeding of this Court in R.F.A.No.408/2000 C/w R.F.A.No.370/2000 decided on 06.04.2009 and therefore in the suit which is subsequently instituted by the petitioners, any observations made by this Court in the order dated 06.04.2009 of this Court may not operate as a bar or may not prejudice the rights of the petitioners. It was submitted that in the present review petition as there is delay a separate application for condonation of delay and application for prosecuting the matter are filed.
3. Whereas, Mr. Sreevatsa, learned Senior counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that if the petitioners are not parties in the earlier litigation, naturally their rights would stand as it were and the order even otherwise also may not binding. But, he submitted that no such clarification is required and this Court may not entertain with the present applications.
4. In our view, as such the order of this Court, if any, is binding to the parties to the proceedings. If the petitioners were not parties in the proceeding, naturally it may not have any binding effect, but thereby no additional right would be conferred to any party in a litigation where the petitioners were not parties to that proceeding.
5. Under the circumstances, we find it appropriate to observe that the earlier order dated 06.04.2009 passed by this Court in R.F.A.No.408/2000 C/w R.F.A.No.370/2000 shall not prejudice the rights of the petitioners in any manner so as to have binding effect. However, concerned Court which is seized with the subsequent proceeding shall be at liberty to take independent view of the matter and at that stage, rights and contentions of the petitioners as well as the respondents, if any, in R.F.A.No.1159/2016 shall open to be considered in accordance with law.
All the applications as well as the review petition shall stand disposed of.
SD/- JUDGE PMR/-
SD/- JUDGE