IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF MARCH 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE S.N.SATYANARAYANA REVIEW PETITION NO.127 OF 2017 IN W.P.NO.54201/2016(KLR-RES) BETWEEN:
1. SMT. PUTTAMMA D/O. LATE GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE THAVAREKERE HOBLI BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK 2. SMT. PUSHPALATHA D/O. LATE GOVINDAIAH AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS R/AT KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, THAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI P.M. SIDDAMALLAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI NARASIMHA MURTHY K.N. S/O. LATE NARASIMHAIAH AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS R/AT KURUBARAHALLI VILLAGE, THAVAREKERE HOBLI, BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK-560 065.
2. THE SPECIAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009 3. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER BANGALORE SOUTH SUB-DIVISION KANDAYA BHAVAN KEMPE GOWDA ROAD, BANGALORE – 560 009 4. THE TAHSILDAR BANGALORE SOUTH TALUK KANDAYA BHAVAN KEMPE GOWDA ROAD BANGALORE – 560 009 ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI B.S.BUDIHAL, H.C.G.P. FOR R.2 TO R4) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED:19/11/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP NO. 54201/2016 AS PER ANNEXURE-C AND THEREBY DISMISS THE WRIT PETITION NO.54201/2016 BY HOLDING THAT THE SAID ORDER IS AN OUTCOME OF MISREPRESENTATION AND PLAYED FRAUD AGAINST THIS HON’BLE COURT BY SUPPRESSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED:19/11/2016 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.54201/2016, BENGALURU AND SO ALSO THE INTERIM ORDER GRANTED HEREIN; AND TO ALLOW THE ABOVE REVIEW PETITION WITH EXEMPLARY COST, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.
THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:-
ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking review of the order dated 19.11.2016 passed in W.P.No.54201/2016 as at Annexure-C to the petition.
2. It is not in dispute that the order dated 19.11.2016 in W.P.No.54201/2016 was passed in the presence of Sri Pramod K., learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. The writ petition is disposed of directing the respondent No.3 therein to pass appropriate orders based on the representation of the petitioner dated 31.08.2016. The said order is sought to be challenged by the petitioners herein in this review petition.
3. Admittedly, what transpired before this Court on 19.11.2016 is not in the presence of the learned counsel, who is presently appearing on behalf of the petitioners. A perusal of the order impugned in this review petition would indicate that the matter is heard in the presence of Sri Pramod K., learned counsel and thereafter, the same is disposed of by the impugned order dated 19.11.2016. Therefore, the question of seeking review of the order dated 19.11.2016 passed in W.P.No.54201/2016 on behalf of the petitioners by some other counsel, who was not present before the Court on that day would not arise.
Accordingly, the review petition is dismissed.
Sd/- JUDGE ST