IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU ON THE 16TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2019 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI MALIMATH AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS REVIEW PETITION NO.264 OF 2019 IN WRIT PETITION NO.5702 OF 2018 (GM-DRT) BETWEEN:
MRS. RANGA LAKSHMAMMA WIFE OF LATE L. BORANNA AGED ABOUT 73 YEARS NO.63, 2ND CROSS VASATHIRAHITHARA SANGA SRIGANDHADAKAVAL, SUNKADAKATTE BENGALURU-560 091.
...PETITIONER (BY SRI D.C. PARAMESWARAIAH, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE AUTHORISED OFFICER VIJAYA BANK LIMITED, ARM BRANCH NO.19 PRIMEROSE ROAD SHRUTHA COMPLEX BENGALURU-560 025.
2. THE PRESIDENT SRIGANDHADAKAVAL VASATHI RAHITHARA SANGHA (R) NO.17, NANJUNDESHWARA NILAYA 1ST FLOOR, 50 FEET MAIN ROAD MUNESHWARA T-BLOCK GIRI NAGARA BENGALURU-560 085.
3. MR. PUTTASWAMY SON OF NANJANNA NO.83, RANGANATHAPURA MAGADI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 079.
4. MR. SESHADRI SON OF NANJANNA NO.83, RANGANATHAPURA MAGADI MAIN ROAD BENGALURU-560 079.
5. MR. NARASIMHAIAH SON OF NARASIMHAIAH NO.21, 12TH "A" MAIN ROAD SHIVANAGARA BENGALURU-560 010.
6. MR. CHANNAPPA SON OF LATE KEMPEGOWDA RESIDING AT NO.56-13TH MAIN ROAD, J.C. NAGAR, KURUBARAHALLI BENGALURU-560 086.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VIGNESH SHETTY, ADVOCATE FOR R1) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION AND REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 11.06.2019 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.5702 OF 2018 (GM-DRT), ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU.
***** THIS REVIEW PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, RAVI MALIMATH, J., PASSED THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER This Review Petition is filed seeking to review the order dated 11-6-2019, passed in Writ Petition No.5702 of 2018. In terms of the said order, it was held that the writ petitioner can make the pre-deposit before the Tribunal and in case he succeeds the amount would be refunded to him. Questioning the same, the instant petition is filed.
2. The counsel for the review petitioner submits that he is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. Therefore, the question of making the pre-deposit would not arise for consideration. The same was not considered in the order under review. Therefore the question was put to the counsel appearing for respondent No.1. He submits that the writ petitioner/review petitioner is neither a borrower nor a guarantor. He is the subsequent purchaser of the property. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for Respondent No.1, we are of the view that insisting on the pre-deposit by the petitioner may not be correct. That he is entitled to contest the matter before the Debt Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Chennai, without any pre-deposit.
In view of the submissions made, the review petition is allowed.
1) The order dated 11-6-2019, passed by the Division Bench in Writ Petition No.5702 of 2018 is reviewed and recalled.
2) The writ petition is allowed. The order of the tribunal directing the appellant to deposit Rs.7,00,000/- is set aside. The appellate Tribunal is directed to proceed and dispose off the matter in accordance with law, without insisting on the pre-deposit.
Sd/- JUDGE Sd/- JUDGE Rsk/-