IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 7TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SREENIVAS HARISH KUMAR REVIEW PETITION No.224 OF 2018 IN R.F.A.No.2142/2011 C/W R.F.A.No.949/2011 C/W R.F.A.No.988/2011 BETWEEN 1. Smt. Kempamma, W/o. Late Lingaiah @ Lingegowda, Aged about 84 years, R/o. No.103, II Cross, Behind Thammayappa Park, Magadi Road, Bengaluru-560023.
2. Smt. Tayamma, W/o. Late Puttaswamaiah @ Puttaswamygowda, Aged about 53 years, R/o. No.103, II Cross, Behind Thammayappa Park, Magadi Road, Bengaluru-560023.
(By Smt. S.Susheela, Senior Advocate for Smt. Y.Dhanalakshmi, Advocate and Smt. K.Sushma, Advocate) AND 1. Smt. Parvathi @ Parvathamma, Aged about 49 years, R/o. No.4 KEB quarters, …Petitioners Soladevanahalli, Hessarghatta Road, C.B.Post Benagluru-560090.
2. The Life Insurance Corporation of India, By its Branch Manager, Richmond Town Branch Canara Mutual Building, II Floor, Residency Road, Bengaluru-560025.
3. Bengaluru Electricity Supply Company (BESCOM) by its Managing Director, K.R.Circle, Bengaluru-560001.
4. Smt. Savitha, D/o. Smt. Shivarathnamma, Aged about 33 years, R/o. Manjunatha, Anneyappa Compound, Sarakki Village, Near Indira Gandhi Circle, J.P.Nagar, I Phase, Bengaluru-560078.
5. Master Abhishek P., S/o. Puttaswamaiah, Aged about 26 years, R/o. No.4, KEB Quarters, Soladevanahalli, Hessarghatta Road, C.B.Post, Bengaluru-560090.
Note:R5 is the LR of Smt. Shivarathnamma, 6. M/s. Aditya Syndicate, Represented by its Manager, Ist Floor, Ashwini Complexes, A.M.Lane, Chikpet, Bengaluru-560051.
(By Sri. T.R.Ramakrishna, Advocate for …Respondents R1 & R5 – Absent, R2 – Served, unrepresented, Sri. V.N.Murthy, Advocate for R3, Sri. H.K.Kenchegowda, Advocate for R4-absent, Sri. H.M.Muralidhar, Advocate for R6) This RP is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC, praying to kindly call for records in RFA No.2142/2011 connected with RFA No.988/2011, dated 12.01.2015 vide Annexure-A on the file of this Hon’ble High Court and etc.
This RP coming on for orders, this day, the Court made the following :
JUDGMENT Heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for respondent no.6. The learned counsel for respondents no.1,4 and 5 is absent.
2. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is filed seeking condonation of 1239 days in filing the review petition. It is stated in the affidavit that when RFA.No.2142/2011, RFA.No.949/2011 and RFA.No.988/2011 were posted before this court on 12.01.2015, an order was passed allowing RFA.No.2142/2011 and suit was remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration. It was also observed that RFA.No.949/2011 and RFA.No.988/2011 be kept in abeyance till decision in the suit which was remanded. This being the clear observation, but the last sentence in para 3 of the order also states that RFA.No.949/2011 and RFA.No.988/2011 stand disposed of. The review petitioners were under the impression that these two appeals were kept under abeyance and when these two appeals were not posted before the court for quite a long time, they enquired in the office of this court as to why these two appeals were not posted before the court. Then only they came to know that these two appeals had been disposed of. This was the reason for delay.
3. The respondents have not filed any objection.
In view of conflicting sentences in para 3 of the judgment dated 12.01.2015, it is quite possible that the review petitioners might have had the impression that these two appeals were pending. Only when they came to know that these two appeals were disposed of, they made this review petition. The reason thus given constitute sufficient cause and therefore delay is condoned.
4. If the judgment dated 12.01.2015 is read, it is very much apparent that para 3 of the judgment contains sentences conveying contradictory meanings. If RFA.No.949/2011 and RFA.No.988/2011 were kept in abeyance, they remained undisposed of. The meaning that can be gathered is that these two appeals will be considered after the decision in suit O.S.8509/2003. But it has also been stated that these two appeals stands disposed of. This gives a different meaning. This is an error apparent on the face of the record. Hence review is granted for the purpose of correcting the mistake. The sentence “RFA.No.949/2011 and RFA.No.988/2011 stand disposed of” is struck of. These two appeals are restored. Put up these two appeals for final hearing.
Sd/- JUDGE sd