IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF APRIL 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE REVIEW PETITION NO.209 OF 2017 BETWEEN:
G.J.RAJU PAIS, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, S/O LATE B.R.PAIS, R/AT “KUM-KUM”, BALMATA ROAD, OPP. CANARA BANK, REGIONAL OFFICE, MANGALORE – 01. … PETITIONER (BY SRI.RAJENDRA M.A., ADV.) AND:
1. THE KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, A BODY CORPORATE ESTABLISHED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SFC ACT, HAVING ITS HEAD OFFICE AT KSFC BHAVN,:NO.1/1, THIMMAIAH ROAD, NEAR CONTONMENT RAILWAY STATION, BANGALORE – 560 052. REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR.
2. THE KARNATAKA STATE FINANCIAL CORPORATION, CHICKMAGALUR BRANCH, AT HOSAMNE EXTENSION ROAD, OPP:DISTRICT PLY GROUND, CHICKKAMAGALUR – 577 101.
3. SRI.K.N.ANANDA, RETD., AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, BRANCH MANAGER, KSFC, CHIKKAMAGALUR BRANCH, HOSMANE EXTENSION ROAD, OPP. DISTRICT PLY GROUND, CHICKKAMAGALUR – 577 101.
4. SRI.VINOD MANOHAR SHERLEKAR, S/O MANOHAR D SHERLEKAR, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, PROP: M/S VEENU CONSTRUCTIONS MANGALORE.
R/AT NO.”SHILPA” AT BEJAI, CHURCH ROAD, MANGALORE – 575 004.
5. SMT.NITA VINOD SHELEKAR, W/O VINOD MANOHAR SHERLEKAR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, R/AT “SHILPA” AT BEJAI, CHURCH ROAD, MANGALORE – 575 004. … RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. P.S.MALIPATIL, ADV. FOR R1 AND R2; SRI.NATARAJA BALLAL, ADV., FOR R4 AND R5 – ABSENT; R3 SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED) - - -
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 06.07.2015 PASSED IN WP NO.4445/2011 (GM – KSFC), ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR FURTHER ORDERS THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Sri. Rajendra M.A., learned counsel for Petitioner. Sri. P.S. Malipatil, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2.
Sri. Nataraja Ballal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5.
2. The review petition is admitted for hearing.
With the consent of the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents, the same is heard finally.
3. Since no period of limitation is prescribed to file an application for review, in spite of an order passed in the proceeding under Article 226 of Constitution of India and in view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of ARIBAM TULESHWAR SHARMA VS. ARIBAM PISHAK SHARMA AND OTHERS; AIR 1979 SC 1047, no orders are required. Hence, I.A. NO.1/2017 is hereby disposed of.
4. This petition has been filed for review of the order dated 6.7.2015 passed by a Bench of this Court in W.P.No.4445/2011.
5. When the matter was taken up today, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that an action was taken against the petitioner under Section 29 of the State Financial Corporation Act, 1951. He further submitted that inadvertently, he made a submission that the petitioner would avail remedy by approaching Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is further submitted that the petitioner has already withdrawn the proceedings initiated by him before the Debt Recovery Tribunal. It is further submitted the writ petition was disposed of on merits.
6. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents submitted that during the pendency of review petition, the property in question has been sold and nothing survives for consideration in the writ petition.
7. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties.
8. The contentions raised by the respondents has to be dealt with while dealing the writ petition on merits. However, taking into account even the settled legal position that on account of inadvertence of the learned counsel, the party should not be suffered, the order dated 6.7.2015 passed in W.P. No.4445/2011 is hereby recalled and same is hereby restored to file.
9. In the result, review petition is allowed.
Sd/- JUDGE Cs/-
CT:SN