IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.G.RAMESH REVIEW PETITION NO.375/2017 BETWEEN:
SMT. JAYALAKSHMI.R W/O LATE SRI N.RADHAKRISHNA REDDY AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS R/AT NO.55/1, 13TH CROSS 4TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE – 560 003 ...PETITIONER (BY SRI G.D.ASWATHANARAYANA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI N.NAGARAJ S/O LATE SRI B.NARASIMHA REDDY AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS R/AT NO.55, 13TH CROSS 4TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE – 560 003 2. SMT. SARALA W/O N.NAGARAJ AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT FLAT NO.302 NO.55, 13TH CROSS, 14TH MAIN MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE – 560 003 3. SMT. PREMA W/O LATE SUBRAMANI REDDY AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS 4. SRI NAVEEN S/O LATE SUBRAMANI REDDY AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS 5. SMT. SHILPA D/O LATE SUBRAMANI REDDY AGED ABOUT 32 YEARS RESPONDENT NOS.3 TO 5 ARE RESIDING AT SATHYA CARNATION APARTMENTS NO.8, 9 & 10, SATHYA ENCLAVE HENNUR MAIN ROAD GEDDELHALLI BANGALORE – 560 043 6. SMT. SUSHEELA W/O SRI CHINNASWAMY REDDY AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT OPP. TO BEHTHNEY SCHOOL AUDOGODI POST KORAMANGALA, BANGALORE 7. SMT. RAJESHWARI W/O SRI S.JAYARAMA REDDY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT NO.15/1, SUBBAIAH REDDY ROAD ULSOOR, BANGLAORE – 560 008 8. SMT. GEETHA W/O LATE SRI C.M.MOHANRAM REDDY AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS R/AT NO.55/1, 13TH CROSS 4TH MAIN, MALLESHWARAM BANGALORE – 560 003 9. SMT. GAJALAKSHMI W/O L.C.SATISHA R/AT NO.1485/1, ARAVINDANAGAR KAMMANAHALLI BANGALORE – 560 084 …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC R/W SECTION 114 OF CPC PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 23.09.2016 PASSED BY THIS COURT IN WP NO.27353/2016 (GM-CPC).
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:
O R D E R H.G.RAMESH, J. (Oral):
1. Heard. In this review petition, the petitioner who was respondent no.1 in W.P.No.27353/2016 is seeking review of the order dated 23.09.2016 passed in the said writ petition. The order whose review is sought for reads as follows:
“1. Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the writ petition may be disposed of by directing the trial Court to dispose of the suit in OS No.2055/2007 expeditiously.
2. Having regard to the fact that the suit is of the year 2007, I accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The trial Court is accordingly directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and in any event within six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The trial Court shall take all necessary steps to dispose of the suit within the aforesaid time, without asking for any further time in the matter. The trial Court shall strictly avoid unnecessary adjournments in the matter. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
Petition disposed of.”
2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the order extracted above is likely to be construed as having affirmed the order dated 11.04.2016 passed on I.A.No.3/2016 in the suit in O.S.No.2055/2007 which was impugned in the writ petition. The apprehension of the petitioner’s counsel is not correct. The above extracted order has not affirmed the order dated 11.04.2016 passed on I.A.No.3/2016 in the suit.
3. I find no ground for review of the order. Accordingly, I.A.Nos.1 & 2/2017 and the review petition are dismissed.
Review Petition dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE hkh.