IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF JULY, 2017 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR REVIEW PETITION NO.352/2017 BETWEEN:
Smt. Lakshmidevamma Dead by LRs:
1(a) Smt. Bramara D/o Late C.R.Gundappa Aged about 65 years 1(b) Smt. Shakuntala D/o Late C.R.Gundappa Aged about 62 years 1(c) Smt. Indira D/o Late C.R.Gundappa Aged about 59 years All are R/at No.286 11th Main Road, 6th Cross Hanumanthnagar Bengaluru – 560 019 ... Petitioners (By Sri M.S.Chandrashekar Babu, Advocate) AND:
1. The State of Karnataka Represented by its Secretary Revenue Department Vikasa Soudha Bengaluru – 560 001 2. The Deputy Commissioner Ramanagar Ramanagar Taluk & District 3. The Tahasildar Ramanagar – 571 511 Ramanagar Taluk & District ...Respondents This Review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC praying to review the order dated 27.01.2017 passed in WP No.33856/2015 (S-Res) on the file of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru, etc.
This petition coming on for hearing on interlocutory application this day, the Court made the following:
ORDER Heard Sri M.S.Chandrashekar Babu, learned counsel appearing for petitioners. Perused the review petition.
2. Order dated 27.01.2017 passed in W.P.No.33856/2015 (S-Res) is sought for being reviewed contending inter-alia that writ petition came to be disposed of by placing the affidavit filed by Additional Deputy Commissioner of Ramanagar, on record and by recording same and despite undertaking given under said affidavit, respondents have not complied with the undertaking given and in view of opportunity having been granted by the Writ Court while disposing of the said Writ Petition to revive the writ petition, present Review petition is filed.
3. This Court cannot exercise power under Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure in as much as four ingredients prescribed under Rule 1 of Order 47 of CPC are not found in the facts and circumstances of the present case, namely there is no error apparent on the face of record, no new material is paced, there is no discovery of new evidence or there exist no sufficient reason or such review.
4. While disposing of W.P.No.33856/2015 on 27.01.2017, this Court had specifically granted liberty to the petitioner to revive the Writ Petition in the event of undertaking given by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Ramanagara, not being complied with. In that view of the matter, review petitioner would be at liberty to take such steps as he may be advised and subject to this observation, review petition is hereby dismissed.
In view of dismissal of review petition, IA No.1/2017 does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, same stands dismissed.
SD/- JUDGE KMV*