IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR.L.NARAYANA SWAMY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE REVIEW PETITION NO.35 OF 2017 IN REGULAR SECOND APPEAL NO.587 OF 2009 BETWEEN:
1. SMT.RENUKAMMA W/O K.KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS 2. SRI. K.KRISHNAPPA S/O MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS OFFICIAL IN TMC SIDDLAGHATTA BOTH ARE R/AT K.E.PET SIDDLAGHATTA – 562 105 (BY SRI K.SEENAPPA, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. SRI.BANGARU SRINIVASAN S/O JAYANARAYANASWAMY AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS RESIDING AT K.K.PET SIDDLAGHATTA – 562 105 2. THE CHIEF OFFICER TOWN MUNICIPAL COUNCIL SIDDLAGHATTA – 562 105 ... PETITIONERS ... RESPONDENTS (SRI B.V.SRINIVAS, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT NO.1) ---
THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 READ WITH ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE PRAYING TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 08.02.2011 IN R.S.A.No.587/2009 PASSED BY THIS HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU.
THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR ADMISSION THIS DAY, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The review petition is filed seeking review of the judgment dated 08.02.2011 passed in R.S.A.No.587/2009.
2. The appellants had filed a regular second appeal against the judgment and decree dated 18.02.2009 passed in R.A.No.56/2002 dismissing the appeal filed against the judgment and decree dated 07.09.2002 passed in O.S.No.2/2000. This Court after hearing both the parties, dismissed the appeal observing that this Court cannot interfere with the disputed facts.
3. Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that this Court while disposing the appeal has failed to consider the substantial question of law framed as to how the Courts below have decreed the suit despite clear recitals in Ex.P3.
Therefore, the order passed in the second appeal requires to be reviewed.
4. Learned advocate for the respondents submits that this Court has not committed any error in passing the judgment and it requires no review.
5. Having heard learned advocates for both the parties and perused the judgment, this Court is of the opinion that the contentions urged by the petitioners cannot be considered under review jurisdiction. There is no error apparent on the face of the record. Hence, review petition is dismissed.
6. In view of disposal of this review petition, pending interlocutory application does not survive for consideration and is also disposed of.
Sd/-
ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE AHB