IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S.MUDAGAL REVIEW PETITION NO.80/2019 IN REGULAR FIRST APPEAL NO.1372/2010 BETWEEN:
CHINNAPPA @ KUMARAPPA SINCE DECEASED BY HIS LR’S 1. SMT.LAKSHMAMMA AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS W/O LATE CHINNAPPA @ KUMARAPPA 2. K.C.JAYAKUMAR S/O LATE CHINNAPPA @ KUMARAPPA BHOVI AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS 3. SARASWATHI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS D/O LATE CHINNAPPA @ KUMARAPPA BHOVI 4. PRASANNA AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS S/O LATE CHINNAPPA @ KUMARAPPA BHOVI ALL ARE R/AT NO.9/8 1ST MAIN ROAD, BYRASANDRA 1ST BLOCK EAST JAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 011 ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI VENKATESH H.N., ADVOCATE) AND:
AKKAYAMMA SINCE DECEASED BY HER LR SRI KODANDARAMA S/O ANNAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS R/AT NO.9/5, 1ST MAIN ROAD BYRASANDRA, JAYANAGAR 1ST BLOCK, EAST BENGALURU – 560 011 ...RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE JUDGMENT AND DECREE DATED 01.06.2017 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN R.F.A.NO.1372/2010 (DEC/POS).
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R Heard.
2. In this review petition, the petitioner is seeking review of the judgment of this Court dated 01.06.2017 passed in RFA No.1372/2010 (declaration and possession).
3. It is contended that identity of ‘B’ schedule property was seriously disputed by the petitioners and while passing the order this Court has not considered the said aspect.
4. As per the petitioners themselves, against the aforesaid judgment of this Court, petitioners preferred Special Leave to Appeal (C) No (s).18380/2017 which came to be dismissed on 30.11.2018. Records show that the said petition was dismissed after pleadings of the parties were completed. The petitioners filed review petition for review of the said order in Special Leave Petition (C) No.18380/2017 which also came to be dismissed on 06.02.2019.
5. The question is whether there is any error apparent on the face of the record. In other words, whether this Court has not considered the identity of the property.
6. This Court raised specific point for consideration on the contention of identity of the property. In paras 21 to 24 of the judgment. This Court in detail discussed about the rival contentions of the parties regarding identity of the property and merits of such contention. On thorough examination of the same, this Court rejected the contention of the petitioners that property is not identifiable. This Court does not find any error apparent on face of the record. The grounds of review petition show that in the guise of review the petitioners are seeking rehearing of the matter on merits.
7. No case to admit. No purpose would be served by issuing notice of IA No.1/2019 filed for condonation of the delay. Therefore, IA No.1/2019 and the review petition are dismissed. In view of dismissal of the petition, IA No.2/2018 does not survive for consideration and is disposed of accordingly.
Sd/- JUDGE KSR