IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22ND DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE K. N. PHANEENDRA REVIEW PETITION NO.33/2017 IN WP NO.56194/2015 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN JAGADEESHA S S/O G. SRINIVASULU AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS NO.98, MARUTHI INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, PEENYA II STAGE BENGALURU – 560 058 … PETITIONER (BY SRI. S. S. NAGANAND, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SRI. NATARAJA B. S., ADV.
AND 1. DR. GONCHIGIRI NARAYANA S/O LATE GIRIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 68 YEARS 2. SMT. JAYANTHI NARAYANA W/O DR.GONCHIGIRI NARAYANA AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS 3. MISS. PRIYADARSHINI NARAYANA D/O DR. GONCHIGIRI NARAYANA AGED ABOU 34 YEARS RESPONDENTS 1 TO 3 ARE R/AT NO.16/21, 3B PEARL PALACE APARTMENTS PALACE CROSS ROAD CHAKRAVARTHI LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 020 4. SMT. ANASUYA RAMAKRISHNA W/O G. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS 5. MS. SHILPA RAMAKRISHNA D/O G. RAMAKRISHNA AGED ABOUT 30 YEARS RESPONDENTS 4 AND 5 ARE R/AT NO. 1344, 3RD CROSS M.R.H.B. COLONY VIJAYANAGAR NORTH BENGALURU – 560 079 6. SRI. S. Y. KUMAR S/O SANNA VEERAPPA AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS R/AT HULIGERE VILLAGE MADHALUR POST – 572 137 SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT 7. SRI. N. R. RAJANNA S/O RANGANATHAPPA AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS R/AT NO.99/3, 16TH MAIN VIJAYANAGAR BENGALURU – 560 040 8. SRI. SANNA VEERAPPA S/O LATE THIMMAPPA AGED ABOUT 77 YEARS R/AT HULIGERE VILLAGE MADHALUR POST – 572 137 SIRA TALUK, TUMKUR DISTRICT 9. SRI. VENKATESHWARA EDUCATIONAL TRUST NO.96, SRI MARUTHI INDUSTRIAL TOWN PEENYA II STAGE BENGALURU – 560 058 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. H. N. SHASHIDHARA, ADV. FOR R1 TO R5, R6 TO R9 – SERVED) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC., PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 01.12.2016 PASSED IN WP NO.56194/2015 (GM-CPC), ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION ALONG WITH IA NO.2/2017 FILED FOR STAY THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER After hearing in detail with regard to Review Petition, this court in fact suggested a solution to both the counsels, that the amount ordered by this court in a sum of Rs.16,20,000/- which is to be payable by the Writ Petitioner to the 9th respondent Trust, can be secured by way of a Bank Guarantee to be furnished before the trial Court subject to the final decision of the trial Court. Both the counsels after consultation with their clients have left it to the discretion of this court to pass an appropriate order.
In view of the above said circumstances, instead of dismissing the Review Petition, I feel, it is just and necessary to allow the Review Petition partly and modify the operative portion of the order passed by this court in Writ Petition No.56194/2015 dated 1.12.2016. The modified portion of the order reads as follows:
The Writ Petition is dismissed. The petitioner is directed to furnish a Bank Guarantee for a sum of Rs.16,20,000/- to the trial Court within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and the said amount has to be paid to the person who succeeds in the suit. If the petitioner fails to succeed in the suit, he shall pay the said amount along with interest to be fixed by the trial Court at the time of disposing the suit on merits. He shall handover the documents pertaining to IT returns and balance sheet for the years 2005-06, 2012-13 and 2013-14 within four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Accordingly, the Review Petition is partly allowed.
In view of the disposal of the Review Petition, IA No.2 of 2017 & IA No.1 of 2018 does not survive for consideration and hence, they are dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE PL*