IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 26th DAY OF AUGUST 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE REVIEW PETITION NO.267 OF 2019 BETWEEN:
SMT NETHRAVATHI M L D/O SRI M K LINGAIAH 1ST WIFE OF DR B N SHIVASWAMY AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS RESIDING AT C/O HARISH K M RANGANATHA NILAYA 1ST MAIN 2ND CROSS VIVEKANANDA NAGARA BEHIND CHOWDESHWARI PETROL BUNK CHANNARAYAPATNA – 573 116 (By MR.AJESH KUMAR S, ADV. FOR MR.GOVINDA GOWDA K T, ADV.) AND:
DR B N SHIVASWAMY S/O LATE NINGE GOWDA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS DOCTOR AT HIRISAVE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE HIRISAVE CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT – 573131 AND ALSO RESIDING AT GOVERNMENT QUARTERS ADJACENT TO HIRISAVE COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTRE (HOSPITAL) NEAR B M ROAD NH 48 HIRISAVE VILLAGE HOBLI AND POST CHANNARAYAPATNA TALUK HASSAN DISTRICT - 573124 … PETITIONER (By MR.R B SADASIVAPPA, ADV. FOR MR.RAVISHA M G, ADV.) … RESPONDENT THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2018 PASSED IN CP NO.261/2018(FC) IN RESPECT OF UNDERTAKING MADE BY HER COUNSEL IN PARA 8 OF IN THE ABOVE CASE ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU; AND ETC.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDER THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER Mr.Ajesh Kumar S., learned counsel for Mr.Govinde Gowda K.T., learned counsel for the petitioner.
Mr.R.B.Sadasivappa, learned counsel for Mr.M.G.Ravisha, learned counsel for the respondent.
2. The petition is admitted for hearing. With consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the same is heard finally.
3. This petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 05.12.2018 passed in civil petition No.261/2018.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he be permitted to withdraw the undertaking furnished to this Court as recorded in para 8 of the order.
5. In view of the order passed in W.P.No.15639/2019, the undertaking which has been furnished by the petitioner has failed into insignificance. Therefore, no order is required to be passed in the review.
Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.
6. In view of the disposal of the petition, the pending interlocutory applications do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.
Sd/- JUDGE RV